In the 1923 case Wong Doo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter of immigration law and due process rights. Wong Doo, a Chinese immigrant who had been living in America for over two decades, was ordered to be deported after he was found guilty of possessing opium illegally. The Supreme Court held that his deportation order violated his right to due process because it relied solely on an uncorroborated confession made by him during interrogation without legal counsel present. Furthermore, this confession contradicted other evidence presented at trial which suggested that he did not possess any opium at the time of arrest but rather acquired it later from another individual while in custody. Therefore, the court concluded that there wasn't enough reliable evidence to support his conviction or justify his deportation.

In the dissenting opinion for Wong Doo v. United States, it was argued that the exclusion of Wong Doo from the country on grounds of his alleged affiliation with a prohibited class (the Communist Party) was unjust and unsupported by sufficient evidence. The dissent emphasized that mere membership in an organization does not necessarily imply endorsement or active participation in its unlawful activities. Furthermore, it pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions in testimonies used against Wong Doo, casting doubt on their reliability. It also criticized the majority's reliance on hearsay evidence which should have been deemed as insufficient to justify deportation under normal circumstances. Therefore, according to this view, due process had not been properly served and Wong Doo’s rights were violated.