In the United States v. Woo Jan case of 1917, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to immigration and naturalization laws. The defendant, Woo Jan, was a Chinese immigrant who had been denied entry into the U.S., despite having a son who was an American citizen by birthright. The court held that under existing law at that time (the Immigration Act of 1907), children born in China to parents who were both Chinese nationals could not automatically claim citizenship through their parent's subsequent naturalization if they themselves did not reside in America during their minority years or declare intention to become citizens within six months after reaching majority age or upon arrival in America if already over twenty-one years old when arriving. Therefore, even though his father became a U.S citizen later on while he himself remained outside USA during his minority years and didn't declare intention immediately upon arrival as an adult - Woo Jan wasn't entitled for admission based solely on his father's status.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Woo Jan, it was argued that the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to merchants who were in transit through America en route to other countries. The justice believed that such a broad interpretation of the law would lead to unjust outcomes and potentially harm international trade relations. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how immigration officials applied this law, with some allowing transiting merchants entry while others denied them based on their nationality or occupation. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's view that Congress had intended for such an expansive application of the act when it was passed. Instead, he contended that lawmakers only meant to restrict permanent settlement by Chinese laborers and not temporary visits by businessmen engaged in legitimate commercial activities.