506 F.Supp.3d 39
D.D.C.2020Background
- President Trump issued a July 21, 2020 memorandum directing the Secretary of Commerce to provide information that would allow the President "to the extent feasible" to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base following the 2020 census.
- The Secretary had not finalized what data or methodologies he would provide by the statutory reporting deadline (Secretary's report due Dec. 31, 2020; President's apportionment statement due Jan. 10, 2021).
- Plaintiffs (local governments, non‑profits, and voters) sued seeking declaratory relief and injunctions against the Secretary and the President, alleging violations of the Apportionment Clauses, equal protection (vote dilution and discriminatory purpose), statutory requirements for the census/apportionment, and the prohibition on using statistical sampling for apportionment.
- The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing, ripeness, and failure to state a claim; plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment and expedited relief; a three‑judge district court was convened.
- The court focused on prudential ripeness: implementation was ongoing, outcomes contingent (which categories of aliens, if any, would be excluded), and substantial factual and legal uncertainties remained about feasibility, lawfulness, and whether sampling would be used.
- Holding: the court dismissed the suit as not ripe for review, finding judicial intervention would improperly interfere with ongoing executive decision‑making, courts would benefit from further factual development, and plaintiffs would not suffer immediate, significant hardship from delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness / Justiciability | Memorandum already creates concrete legal injury and must be reviewed now. | Implementation is contingent; Secretary and President have not fixed any apportionment decision; review would interfere with executive process. | Not ripe: suit dismissed for prudential ripeness—implementation uncertain and judicial review premature. |
| Apportionment Clause (constitutional) | Excluding illegal aliens violates the Fourteenth Amendment requirement to apportion by the "whole number of persons"; categorical exclusion unlawful. | Executive has discretion to determine "inhabitant/usual residence" and may lawfully exclude non‑lawful aliens to the extent feasible. | Not reached on the merits—claim unripe because the legal analysis depends on which categories (if any) would be excluded. |
| Vote‑dilution / Equal Protection | Exclusion will likely change apportionment and dilute plaintiffs' votes; memorandum discriminatorily targets immigrants. | Any impact depends on which aliens are excluded and whether President accepts Secretary's recommendations; effects speculative. | Not ripe: plaintiffs have not shown a reasonably likely apportionment change or discriminatory effect given implementation uncertainty. |
| Statutory / Sampling (13 U.S.C. §195 and sampling cause of action) | Memorandum will force Bureau to estimate undocumented population via statistical sampling, violating the Enumeration Clause and §195; plaintiffs invoke expedited statutory cause of action. | Memorandum expressly requires lawful, feasible methods; it does not mandate sampling; statute does not abolish prudential ripeness. | Not ripe: no plausible inference defendants will use unlawful sampling now; statutory cause of action does not eliminate prudential ripeness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (Executive directs census policy; census process not final until President submits apportionment statement)
- Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (Secretary's census decisions entitled to broad discretion; sampling and methodology issues discussed)
- Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) (distinguishing lawful imputation from unlawful statistical sampling for apportionment)
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (statutory cause of action for unlawful statistical methods construed; standing/ripeness distinctions discussed)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (prudential ripeness framework balancing fitness and hardship)
- Ohio Forestry Ass'n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) (ripeness requirement to avoid premature adjudication of administrative policies)
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997) (judicial exercise of power only as last resort; standing limits)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (vote‑dilution as cognizable injury under apportionment jurisprudence)
- Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, 683 F.3d 382 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (ripeness and injury‑in‑fact standards in administrative context)