Trump v. New York

Background

A group of States, local governments, organizations, and individuals sued after the President issued a July memorandum directing the Census Secretary to provide information so the President could exclude aliens not in lawful immigration status from the apportionment base. A three-judge District Court found plaintiffs had standing, ruled the memorandum unlawful, and enjoined the Secretary from supplying the exclusion data; the Government appealed.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether the case was properly before judges now. It said the alleged chilling effect had ended when the census response period closed, and any future injury from a changed apportionment depended on uncertain, contingent steps: the Secretary’s ability to match administrative records, what the President might direct, and whether exclusion would be feasible. Given those contingencies, the Court found plaintiffs had not shown a concrete, imminent injury. The Court therefore vacated the District Court’s judgment and instructed the case be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, expressly leaving the constitutional and statutory merits unresolved.

Real world impact

The decision leaves unresolved whether undocumented residents will be excluded from apportionment or whether any such change would alter House seats or federal funding for States. States, local governments, and communities must wait for concrete executive action before re‑litigating these claims in federal court. This ruling is procedural and not a final judgment on the lawfulness of the memorandum.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. They would have found the dispute justiciable now and would have decided the merits, concluding the statute and history require counting residents regardless of immigration status.