About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

78 Tex. L. Rev. 1661 (1999-2000)
Federal Courts Issues in Immigration Law

handle is hein.journals/tlr78 and id is 1677 raw text is: Federal Courts Issues in Immigration Law
Gerald L. Neuman*
I.   Introduction
Recent changes in the immigration and nationality laws raise fun-
damental questions about the role of the federal courts in protecting
individual rights, and give immediate relevance to classic debates in the
law of Federal Courts concerning congressional control of jurisdiction,
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the public rights doctrine under
Article I, the limits of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and
the effects of federal court judgments. Nonetheless, many teachers of
Federal Courts regard immigration and nationality law as an exotic spe-
cialty peripheral to their expertise, and classic Federal Courts cases
involving immigration and nationality law do not appear in most Federal
Courts casebooks.' The latest edition of the Hart and Wechsler casebook
omitted the portions of Hart's seminal dialogue on the power of Congress
over the jurisdiction of the federal courts that addressed immigration cases,
just as those portions were becoming central to litigation on the federal
courts' power to review deportation orders.2
* Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence, Columbia Law School. I owe thanks for
comments, criticisms and suggestions to participants in the October 1999 Symposium on Federal Courts
at the University of Texas School of Law, and to Samuel Issacharoff, John Manning, David Martin,
Henry Monaghan, Hiroshi Motomura, and Arnold Rochvarg. All errors are mine. This Article is
dedicated to the memory of the late Professor Herbert Wechsler.
1. See Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944); Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568
(1926); Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922); United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253 (1905);
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896). All of these were included or discussed in the first
edition of HENRY M. HART & HERBERT WECHSLER, THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE FEDERAL
SYSTEM 105, 328-30, 1340 (1953). The Fourth Edition still contained Tutun, and mentioned Ng Fung
Ho. See RICHARD H. FALLON ET AL., HART & WECHSLER'S THE FEDERAL COURTS AND THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM 107, 397 (4th ed. 1996). Only Ng Fung Ho was mentioned in DAvID P. CURRIE,
FEDERAL COURTS 144 (3d ed. 1982), and none of these cases are mentioned in PE.TER W. Low & JOHN
C. JEFFRIES, JR., FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW OF FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS (3d ed. 1994), or
CHARLES T. MCCORMICK ET AL., FEDERAL COURTS (9th ed. 1992).
2. Compare FALLON Er AL., supra note 1, at 364-98 passim (reprinting selected excerpts from
Hart's Dialogue), with Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal
Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 HARV. L. REV. 1362 (1953) (containing the full text of the
dialogue, including the discussion of immigration cases).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 3,000 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most