In the case of Deboris Calcano-Martinez et al. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction to review decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The plaintiffs were legal immigrants who had been convicted of felonies in the United States and faced deportation under immigration law changes enacted in 1996. They argued that these laws violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under law. The government contended that Congress had stripped federal courts' jurisdiction over such cases with its passage of Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996 which limited judicial review for certain criminal aliens facing removal orders from BIA. However, Justice David Souter writing for a unanimous court held that despite IIRIRA's restrictions on habeas corpus relief, it did not preclude judicial review via a writ of habeas corpus filed in district court as provided by section 2241of title 28 - thus allowing noncitizens to challenge constitutionality or legality of final order deportations.

In the dissenting opinion for Calcano-Martinez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice Scalia argued that the court's decision to allow judicial review of deportation orders under a habeas corpus petition was incorrect. He believed this interpretation contradicted Congress' intent in passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) which aimed to limit judicial review of such cases. According to him, IIRIRA clearly stated that no court had jurisdiction over final removal orders against criminal aliens except as provided by law - meaning only through direct appeal rather than habeas corpus petitions. Thus, he contended that allowing these types of reviews undermined Congressional authority and disrupted balance between branches of government.