What is the city's position on a retroactive right of review?

The city would distinguish this case from the situation where appellate review remedies already exist and had been exhausted. In support of this position, it cites Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 19 S.Ct. 722, 43 L.Ed. 1041. There, however, the court interpreted the statute as bringing up for review only the question as to whether the legislation under which the original determinations were made was itself constitutional. This is a far narrower scope of review and, moreover, the constitutionality of the law was upheld. Also the order of refund here was absolute, while in Stephens there was no certainty that there would be any distribution of lands or property.

Garrison v. City of New York, 21 Wall. 196, 88 U.S. 196, 22 L.Ed. 612 is not in point. It presented no true constitutional question since at the time of the entry of the order the city under then existing law had a method of obtaining relief from the order of confirmation. Therefore, the statute purporting to grant a retroactive right of review did not in

Page 727