In 1996, the U.S. Congress made dramatic, confusing, and successive changes to the country’s immigration laws. In case after case, the government argued that Congress had amended the Immigration Act that the Attorney General would determine what those amendments meant, and that the new laws had repealed the federal courts’ power to review the Attorney General’s rulings. In earlier battles over judicial review, Congress had proposed but never enacted provisions that would have stripped the federal courts of their jurisdiction to hear school desegregation, abortion, and prayer-in-school cases or to order meaningful remedies even if the claim could be heard. In one respect, the controversy engendered by the 19% immigration laws is even more fundamental because even state courts do not have residual authority over immigration issues, as they do over other cases. Hence, the fundamental question at issue in the immigration context is whether a long-time immigrant can be ordered deported without any access to a judicial forum to challenge the legality of the government’s action.