Trump v. New York
592 U.S. 125
SCOTUS
2020

Background

  • In July 2020 the President issued a memorandum directing exclusion "from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status" and ordering the Secretary of Commerce to provide information to enable that exclusion when preparing the §141(b) apportionment tabulation.
  • Multiple States, local governments, organizations, and individuals sued; a three‑judge District Court held plaintiffs had standing, found the memorandum unlawful under the Census‑and‑apportionment statutes and Constitution, and enjoined the Secretary from providing the exclusionary information.
  • The Government appealed to the Supreme Court; the Court stayed further consideration of its jurisdiction and later heard the appeal.
  • The Supreme Court (per curiam) vacated the District Court judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding plaintiffs had not shown Article III standing and the dispute was not ripe because the asserted injuries were speculative and contingent on future executive action.
  • The Court emphasized uncertainty about (a) whether the memorandum could feasibly be implemented, (b) what subset of non‑lawful residents (if any) would actually be excluded, and (c) whether apportionment changes would translate directly into funding harms. The Court therefore declined to reach the merits.
  • Justice Breyer (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan) dissented: he would have held the case justiciable and—on the statutory record—would have affirmed the lower courts that the memorandum unlawfully excludes usual residents from the apportionment base.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Standing (Article III injury) Memorandum chilled census responses and threatens representational and funding injuries from exclusion of undocumented persons Any chilling had dissipated; representational/funding injuries are speculative and depend on future contingencies No standing: plaintiffs failed to show a concrete, particularized, imminent injury
Ripeness (premature adjudication) There is a substantial risk the memorandum will be implemented and will reduce apportionment/funding; preventive relief is appropriate Implementation details are uncertain; litigation should await the Secretary’s §141(b) report and the President’s final apportionment statement Not ripe: claims depend on contingent future events and executive decisionmaking
Statutory claim (13 U.S.C. §141(b) and 2 U.S.C. §2a(a)) — whether aliens without lawful status may be excluded from the apportionment base Statute and long practice require counting usual residents regardless of immigration status; exclusion violates the statutory requirement to report the "whole number of persons" Executive has discretion to gather and report information "to the extent practicable" and the President/Secretary may act within that discretion Not decided on the merits—Court expressed no view and left statutory/constitutional claims for consideration only if case becomes justiciable
Injunctive remedy / separation of powers District Court injunction (prohibiting Secretary from providing exclusionary data) was needed to prevent implementation Injunction implicates Presidential functions (Opinions Clause) and pre‑apportionment process; relief should await concrete executive action Remedy vacated by remand/dismissal for lack of jurisdiction; merits and scope of injunctive relief not adjudicated

Key Cases Cited

  • Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. _ (2019) (census‑related limits on executive policy and enumeration procedures)
  • Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (role of Secretary and President in pre‑apportionment and the moving‑target nature of pre‑apportionment challenges)
  • Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (review of census‑related executive action before completion of the census)
  • Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) (decennial census consequences for federal funding and intrastate redistricting)
  • Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) (constitutional limits on methods used in producing census counts)
  • Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (standard for alleging future injury and "substantial risk")
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requirements: concreteness and imminence)
  • Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (preventive relief when injury is certainly impending)
  • Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness analysis: fitness of issue and hardship from withholding review)
  • Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (case‑or‑controversy requirement demands a live dispute at all stages)
Read the full case