State of New York v. Trump
485 F.Supp.3d 422
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- The President issued a July 21, 2020 Presidential Memorandum directing exclusion of "aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status" from the apportionment base after the 2020 Census and ordering the Commerce Secretary to provide two sets of numbers: the census tabulation and a second tabulation excluding illegal aliens.
- The 2020 Census was underway (and still conducting Non-Response Follow-Up) and does not collect immigration-status information; the Census Residence Rule directs counting residents by "usual residence," including noncitizens.
- Governmental and NGO plaintiffs filed suit three days after the Memorandum, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the Memorandum violates the Census Act, the apportionment statute, and the Constitution; plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on statutory and Enumeration Clause claims.
- Plaintiffs alleged two primary harms: (1) potential loss of congressional seats if illegal aliens are excluded; and (2) immediate and ongoing chilling effects on census participation (especially among immigrants), degrading census data and forcing NGOs and governments to divert resources to outreach.
- The three-judge court concluded it had Article III jurisdiction based on plaintiffs’ showing that the Memorandum is causing present, concrete harms to census accuracy and resource diversion, and granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ statutory (ultra vires) claims.
- Remedy: the court declared the Memorandum unlawful and enjoined defendants (other than the President) from including in the Secretary’s §141(b) report any information that would permit exclusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base; declaratory relief was also granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing / ripeness | Plaintiffs: Memorandum is already chilling participation and degrading census data; NGOs divert resources — injuries are concrete, traceable, redressable now. | Defendants: Apportionment harms speculative until Secretary acts; census effects unproven and too attenuated; not ripe. | Court: Plaintiffs have standing based on imminent, concrete census harms and diversion-of-resources; prudential ripeness satisfied. |
| Whether President/Exec may base apportionment on numbers other than the decennial census | Plaintiffs: Statutes (13 U.S.C. §141 and 2 U.S.C. §2a) require the Secretary to report a single census tabulation and the President to use those census figures; Memorandum unlawfully seeks a second non-census tabulation. | Defendants: Franklin v. Massachusetts permits President supervisory discretion over census and does not bar post-reporting changes; President can direct how to define “persons in each State.” | Court: Statutory text, history, and longstanding practice require apportionment be based solely on the decennial census tabulation; Memorandum’s demand for a second set of numbers violates the statutes. |
| Whether "persons in each State" excludes illegal aliens by virtue of illegal status | Plaintiffs: "Persons" and "persons in each State" as used in §2a(a) and practice include all usual residents regardless of immigration status; Congress rejected amendments to exclude aliens. | Defendants: "Persons in each State" hinges on inhabitancy/usual residence and the President may exclude categories (e.g., non-resident aliens, temporary visitors); illegal status permits exclusion. | Court: The statutory phrase was understood to include all residents irrespective of legal status; exclusion based solely on unlawful presence contradicts the statute and historical practice. |
| Remedy: appropriate scope of relief and whether President may be enjoined | Plaintiffs: Seek declaratory judgment and a permanent nationwide injunction enjoining implementation, including against the President. | Defendants: Injunction would interfere with executive conduct and potentially intrude on presidential prerogative; President is improper target. | Court: Permanent injunction granted against defendants other than the President (sufficient relief because Secretary must supply the President’s data); declaratory judgment issued that Memorandum is unlawful. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019) (addressing standing and predictable third-party effects in the citizenship-question context)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (discussing President’s supervisory role over census operations and ministerial nature of apportionment)
- Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (describing the census’s broad governmental/statistical uses and limits on certain enumeration methods)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements and burden of proof at summary judgment)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (redressability: partial remedy suffices where relief likely to reduce risk of harm)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence standard for future injury)
- Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) (principle of equal representation for equal numbers of people)