Trump v. New York
Overview
Overview
Trump v. New York (2020) dismissed 6-3 as not ripe a challenge to President Trump's memorandum directing the Census Bureau to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base used to allocate congressional seats among states. The Court found the case unripe because the memorandum's implementation was uncertain. The underlying legal question, whether the President can exclude noncitizens from apportionment, remains unresolved.
The Facts
Facts
President Trump issued a memorandum in July 2020 directing the Secretary of Commerce to report to the President the number of undocumented immigrants in each state, and directing that the apportionment base for congressional seat allocation exclude those individuals. Several states and organizations sued, arguing Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment require apportionment based on 'the whole number of persons' in each state. Not excluding any category of residents based on immigration status. The district court ruled against the administration.
The Issue
Issue
Whether the President may direct the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the population base used for congressional apportionment, and whether the challenge to the memorandum was ripe for judicial review.
The Rules
Rule
U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2 and amend. XIV, § 2 require congressional apportionment based on the 'whole number of persons in each State.' Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) held that judicial review of apportionment decisions is limited. Ripeness doctrine requires that legal issues be sufficiently concrete, not dependent on uncertain future executive action, for judicial review.
The Application
Analysis
The memorandum directed the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base, which appeared to conflict with the constitutional mandate to base apportionment on the 'whole number of persons' in each state. The Court applied ripeness doctrine to avoid the merits: because the Secretary of Commerce's implementation of the directive remained uncertain and contingent on presidential action, the plaintiffs faced no concrete, ripe injury suitable for judicial resolution. The President might withdraw, modify, or decline to implement the memorandum before the 2020 Census concluded, making the constitutional injury speculative rather than imminent. By dismissing on ripeness grounds rather than the merits, the Court left unresolved whether the President may exclude any category of residents from the apportionment base.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided December 18, 2020. The per curiam ruling dismissed the case as not ripe, avoiding a ruling on the merits. The underlying constitutional question. Whether Congress and the President can define 'persons' for apportionment purposes to exclude noncitizens. Remains live and may be revisited in subsequent litigation or legislation.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support