In the United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration case in 1926, the Supreme Court ruled on an immigration matter involving a Russian immigrant named Michael Vajtauer who was ordered to be deported due to his alleged affiliation with an organization advocating for violent overthrow of government - a violation under the Immigration Act of 1918. The court had to determine whether there was enough evidence supporting this claim and if procedural due process rights were violated during deportation proceedings as claimed by Mr. Vajtauer's counsel. The Supreme Court held that while it is not within its jurisdiction to review factual determinations made by administrative bodies like immigration boards, it can ensure that such decisions are based on substantial evidence and follow proper legal procedures. In this case, they found no substantial proof linking Mr.Vajtouer directly or indirectly with any activities promoting governmental overthrow through violence or force. Furthermore, they agreed that he wasn't given fair opportunity at his hearing since he wasn’t allowed access to certain documents used against him nor permitted adequate cross-examination of witnesses testifying against him; thus violating his right to procedural due process. Therefore, the court reversed lower courts' rulings upholding deportation order and remanded back for further proceedings consistent with their opinion.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration argued that the majority's decision to deport Vajtauer was based on an overly broad interpretation of the term "anarchist." The dissent pointed out that while Vajtauer had indeed been a member of a political organization advocating for changes in government, there was no evidence suggesting he endorsed or advocated for violent overthrow or destruction of any government, including that of the United States. Thus, labeling him as an anarchist and ordering his deportation under immigration laws targeting anarchists seemed unjustified and inconsistent with principles underlying American democracy which allows freedom to hold different political views without fear of persecution unless they pose clear danger to national security. Furthermore, it was emphasized that such expansive interpretations could potentially lead to misuse against individuals merely because their political beliefs differ from those held by authorities in power at any given time.