Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Trump v. New York

Trump v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States

 November 30, 2020, Argued; December 18, 2020, Decided

No. 20-366.

Opinion

 [*533]   [**367]  Per Curiam.

Every ten years, the Nation undertakes an “Enumeration” of its population “in such Manner” as Congress “shall by Law direct.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §2, cl. 3. This census plays a critical role in apportioning Members of the House of Representatives among the States, allocating federal funds to the States, providing information for intrastate redistricting, and supplying data for numerous initiatives conducted by governmental entities, businesses, and academic researchers. Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2556, 204 L. Ed. 2d 978 (2019).

Congress has given both the Secretary of Commerce and the President functions to perform in the enumeration and apportionment  [*534]  process. The Secretary must “take a decennial census of population . . . in such form and content as he may determine,” 13 U. S. C. §141(a), and then must report to the President “[t]he tabulation of  [**368]  total population by States” under the census “as required for the apportionment,” §141(b). The President in turn must transmit to Congress a “statement showing the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained” under the census. 46 Stat. 26, 2 U. S. C. §2a(a). In that statement, [***2]  the President must apply a mathematical formula called the “method of equal proportions” to the population counts in order to calculate the number of House seats for each State. Ibid.; see Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U. S. 442, 451-452, 112 S. Ct. 1415, 118 L. Ed. 2d 87 (1992).

This past July, the President issued a memorandum to the Secretary respecting the apportionment following the 2020 census. The memorandum announced a policy of excluding “from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status.” 85 Fed. Reg. 44680 (2020). To facilitate implementation “to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with the discretion delegated to the executive branch,” the President ordered the Secretary, in preparing his §141(b) report, “to provide information permitting the President, to the extent practicable, to exercise the President’s discretion to carry out the policy.” Ibid. The President directed the Secretary to include such information in addition to a tabulation of population according to the criteria promulgated by the Census Bureau for counting each State’s residents. Ibid.; see 83 Fed. Reg. 5525 (2018).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

141 S. Ct. 530 *; 208 L. Ed. 2d 365 **; 2020 U.S. LEXIS 6105 ***; 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 627; 2020 WL 7408998

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Appellants v. NEW YORK, et al.

Notice: The LEXIS pagination of this document is subject to change pending release of the final published version.

Prior History:  [***1] ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

New York v. Trump, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165827, 2020 WL 5422959 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 10, 2020)

CORE TERMS

census, apportionment, aliens, memorandum, reside, decennial census, tabulation, excluding, funding, immigration status, Immigration, enumeration, whole number, counted, inhabitant, ripe, unlawfully, estimate, purposes, administrative record, prediction, feasible, substantial risk, total population, contingencies, proportional, speculation, concrete, threatened injury, federal funds

Constitutional Law, Congressional Duties & Powers, Census, Apportionment & Redistricting, Census & Enumeration, Governments, Federal Government, Executive Offices, Civil Procedure, Justiciability, Case & Controversy Requirements, Actual Controversy, Ripeness, Imminence, Case or Controversy, Standing, Elements, The Judiciary, Ripeness, Injury in Fact