In the 1906 case of Zartarian v. Billings, Commissioner of Immigration, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Armenian immigrant named Zartarian who was initially denied entry into the United States due to a lack of funds and inability to secure employment. The court held that immigrants could not be excluded from entering the country solely based on their financial status or job prospects. This decision emphasized that immigration officials must consider other factors such as character and physical health when determining admissibility. Furthermore, it underscored that these decisions should not be arbitrary but rather grounded in law and fact-based evidence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Zartarian v. Billings, Commissioner of Immigration argued that the majority's decision to deport Mr. Zartarian was based on an incorrect interpretation of immigration law. The dissent pointed out that while Mr. Zartarian had indeed been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (a requirement for deportation), this conviction occurred after he had already legally entered the United States and thus should not be grounds for his removal from the country. Furthermore, they noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr. Zartarian posed any danger to society or would likely commit further crimes if allowed to remain in America; as such, they believed it unjust and unnecessary to uproot him from his life here simply because he made one mistake in his past.