Term: 2020
Docket: 20-366
Trump v. New York
- Pro
20-366 TRUMP V. NEW YORK DECISION BELOW: 2020 WL 5422959 QUESTION PRESENTED: Congress has provided that, for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives, the President shall prepare “a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State * * * as ascertained under the * * * decennial census of the population.” 2 U.S.C. 2a(a). It has further provided that the Secretary of Commerce shall take the decennial census “in such form and content as he may determine,” 13 U.S.C. 141(a), and shall tabulate the results in a report to the President, 13 U.S.C. 141(b). The President has issued a Memorandum instructing the Secretary to include within that report information enabling the President to implement a policy decision to exclude illegal aliens from the base population number for apportionment “to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch.” 85 Fed. Reg. 44,679, 44,680 (July 23, 2020). At the behest of plaintiffs urging that the exclusion of illegal aliens would unconstitutionally alter the apportionment and chill some persons from participating in the census, a three-judge district court declared the Memorandum unlawful and enjoined the Secretary from including the information in his report. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the relief entered satisfies the requirements of Article III of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Memorandum is a permissible exercise of the President’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-CV-5770 (RCW) (PWH) (JMF) FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION IS POSTPONED TO THE HEARING OF THE CASE ON THE MERITS. THE CASE IS SET FOR ARGUMENT ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2020. EXPEDITED BRIEFING. JURISDICTION POSTPONED 10/16/2020
In the case of Trump v. New York, 2020, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide on a policy change proposed by President Donald Trump's administration regarding how seats in Congress are apportioned among states. The policy sought to exclude undocumented immigrants from the population count used for this purpose - a significant departure from longstanding practice that counts all residents regardless of immigration status. Several states and local governments challenged this move arguing it would diminish their representation in Congress and reduce federal funding they receive based on population size. The court ruled against President Trump but did not address the core issue at hand: whether or not undocumented immigrants can be excluded from apportionment counts. Instead, it dismissed the case as "premature," stating that because it wasn't clear how many people would ultimately be excluded nor which states might lose congressional seats due to such exclusion, there were no concrete harms yet for them to rule on.
In the dissenting opinion for TRUMP v. NEW YORK, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, argued that the case was not moot or premature as suggested by the majority. They contended that President Trump's memorandum to exclude undocumented immigrants from census data used for apportionment of congressional seats presented a concrete dispute with immediate impact on states' representation in Congress and allocation of federal funds. The dissenters believed there was sufficient evidence showing harm to certain states due to this policy change. They also disagreed with the interpretation of "persons in each state" under 2 U.S.C §2a(a) and Article I Section 2 Clause 3 of Constitution which traditionally included every person residing in a state irrespective of their legal status. In their view, it violated both statutory law governing apportionment and constitutional principles ensuring equal representation.
