(B) is correct. Issue: Whether a statute that has not yet been enforced can be challenged in federal court.

Rule: A controversy must be fully developed before litigation — this means there must be an injury or a real threat of harm for a case to be ripe. The court may not render advisory opinions which have no legal ramification.

Analysis: Although Congress has recently enacted this statute, because the statute has not yet gone into effect and has not been enforced against the resident, the resident has not suffered any injury. There is thus no claim or controversy which the court may adjudicate; any opinion it issues will be merely advisory. Note that if there is a threat of enforcement against the resident this is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of ripeness. Here, however, there is not even a threat of enforcement under the facts given. (B) is correct because it recognizes that this is a ripeness issue, and that the resident must actually suffer an injury, or be faced with an immediate threat of injury to bring the suit. The controversy here is not yet ripe. (A) is incorrect because the requirement for a three-judge panel would not be a reason that the court refuses to hear the case. If a three judge panel is required, the district court would request it. (C) is incorrect because if a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, this is not a political question. The court does have a duty to interpret statutes and strike down statutes that are unconstitutional. (D) is incorrect because the resident would have standing to challenge the statute if he is injured by the statute.