Trump v. New York

On July 21, 2020, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum declaring that undocumented immigrants would be excluded from the congressional apportionment base for the 2020 census. The memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce to provide information enabling the President to exclude noncitizens without lawful immigration status when apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. A coalition of states, including New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, the City of New York, and the City and County of San Francisco, challenged the memorandum in federal court. They argued that the policy would deter undocumented immigrants from participating in the census, resulting in undercounts and diminished federal funding and congressional representation. The District Court declared the memorandum unlawful and enjoined its implementation. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 30, 2020, and issued its decision on December 18, 2020.

In a 6-3 per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the District Court's decision and ordered the case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged injuries were speculative and not imminent, and the case was not ripe for review because it depended on contingent future events. The Court expressed no view on the merits of the constitutional and statutory claims. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.

The primary dispute focused on whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge the presidential memorandum and whether the case was ripe for judicial review. The Court also considered whether the President possessed discretionary authority to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base under the Constitution, the Census Act, and the Reapportionment Act.

The decision left unresolved the question of whether undocumented immigrants could be excluded from the census apportionment base, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its policy. Critics warned that excluding undocumented immigrants would result in undercounts, vote dilution, and diminished representation for communities of color, while potentially shifting congressional seats to more Republican-leaning states. The ruling reinforced the justiciability requirements of standing and ripeness in challenges to executive branch policies.