Review As a threshold matter, we note that the judicial review provision contained in the 1998 Appropriations Act eliminated all prudential ripeness concerns. See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, - & n. 3, 117 S.Ct. 2312, 2318 & n. 3, 138 L.Ed.2d 849 (1997). To the extent that the ripeness doctrine has force under Article III, the Supreme Court’s precedents clearly demonstrate that this case is ripe for review. See Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 149, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 18 L.Ed.2d 681 (1967). Given the finality of the Department’s decision to utilize statistical sampling as a means to determining the population for the purposes of congressional apportionment in Census 2000, it is clear that ripeness concerns have no applicat o., 473 U.S. 568, 581, 105 S.Ct. 3325, 87 L.Ed.2d 409 (1985) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Plaintiffs challenge the
holding that because a statute was constitutional as applied to the class of cases implicated by the matter before it the court needed to go no further holding that district court has no jurisdiction to take further action where there was no remand order holding that remand is appropriate in part where the court determines that further evidence is necessary to develop the facts of the case fully holding where no further factual development is necessary to further illuminate the legal issues presented ripeness concerns are not implicated holding no remand required where no fundamental rights are implicated