In the 1957 case United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy et al. v. Murff, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Chinese detainees sought relief from deportation under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allowed for suspension of deportation if an alien had been physically present in the U.S. for at least seven years prior to their application for such relief and could demonstrate good moral character during that time period. The Supreme Court ruled against them because they were detained upon arrival in the U.S., meaning they were not technically "in" or "present" within the country as required by law to qualify for this type of relief from deportation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Lee Kum Hoy et al. v. Murff, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service (1957), Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to deny relief to Chinese seamen who were seeking asylum in the U.S., arguing that they had been denied due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that these individuals should have been given a fair opportunity to present their case before an impartial tribunal and not be subjected to deportation without proper examination of their claims for political asylum or refugee status based on fear of persecution if returned home. Furthermore, he criticized how immigration officials handled this matter by relying solely on written reports rather than conducting personal interviews or hearings where evidence could be presented and evaluated objectively.