In Wong Wing v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that certain sections of the Geary Act were unconstitutional. The case involved a Chinese immigrant named Wong Wing who was arrested and sentenced to hard labor for 60 days before being deported under provisions of the Geary Act - an act which required all Chinese residents in the U.S., regardless of their legal status, to carry certificates proving their right to be in America. If they failed to have such proof on demand, they could be arrested and deported or forced into hard labor prior deportation without trial by jury. The court held that these punishments violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights including protection against cruel and unusual punishment as well as due process rights like having a fair trial by jury before being punished with imprisonment at hard labor.

In the dissenting opinion for Wong Wing v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that Congress has broad power to regulate immigration and can impose penalties on those who violate its laws. He believed that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the Constitution, specifically regarding cruel and unusual punishment. According to him, imprisonment at hard labor is not inherently cruel or unusual; it depends on factors such as duration and conditions of confinement. Furthermore, he contended that non-citizens should not be exempt from punishments prescribed by law simply because they are in process of being deported. He also disagreed with the majority's view about due process rights for non-citizens facing deportation proceedings; he maintained these individuals do have certain procedural protections but their cases need not follow exactly same procedures as criminal trials since deportation itself is not a punishment but an administrative action taken in public interest.