In the United States v. Jin Fuey Moy case of 1915, the Supreme Court ruled on whether a Chinese man could be deported based on an opium possession conviction. The defendant argued that he had not been given due process because his indictment did not specify whether he was being charged with smoking or possessing opium for sale, which were two separate offenses under federal law at the time. He also claimed that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated when evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was used against him in court. However, the Supreme Court upheld Moy's deportation order and rejected both arguments. The court stated that while it is important to clearly define charges in criminal cases where punishment may include imprisonment or fines, this level of specificity is unnecessary in deportation proceedings since they are civil rather than criminal matters. Regarding Moy's Fourth Amendment claim, the justices held that illegally seized evidence can indeed be used in civil proceedings such as immigration hearings despite its exclusion from criminal trials.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jin Fuey Moy, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a warrantless search and seizure of opium from Moy's residence. He argued that such an action violated the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Holmes contended that there was no immediate danger or threat justifying a warrantless search in this case, as law enforcement had been aware of Moy’s activities for some time before conducting the raid on his home without obtaining a proper warrant first. The justice also expressed concern about setting dangerous precedents where constitutional protections could be bypassed under vague circumstances of urgency or necessity, which he felt were not present in this particular case.