Trump v. New York, No. 20-366

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
Parties Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Appellants v. NEW YORK, et al.
Decision Date18 December 2020
Docket NumberNo. 20-366

141 S.Ct. 530
208 L.Ed.2d 365

Donald J. TRUMP, President of the United States, et al., Appellants
v.
NEW YORK, et al.

No. 20-366

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 18, 2020


Jeffrey B. Wall, Acting Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Hashim M. Mooppan, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Sopan Joshi, Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General, Nicole Frazer Reaves Brinton Lucas, Assistants to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellants.

Matthew Colangelo, Chief Counsel for Federal Initiatives, Elena Goldstein, Deputy Chief, Civil Rights Bureau, Fiona J. Kaye, Assistant Attorney General, Letitia James, Attorney General, State of New York, Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Judith N. Vale, Senior Assistant, Solicitor General, Eric R. Haren, Special Counsel, New York, NY, Philip J. Weiser, Attorney General, State of Colorado, Denver, CO, William Tong, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, William Tong, Attorney General, State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT, Kathleen Jennings, Attorney General, State of Delaware, Wilmington, DE, Clare E. Connors, Attorney General, State of Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI, Kwame Raoul, Attorney General, State of Illinois, Chicago, IL, Aaron M. Frey, Attorney General, State of Maine, Augusta, ME, Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General, State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, Maura Healey, Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA, Dana Nessel, Attorney General, State of Michigan, Lansing, MI, Keith Ellison, Attorney General, State of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, Aaron D. Ford, Attorney General, State of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, State of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ, Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, Joshua H. Stein, Attorney General, State of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC, Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, State of Oregon, Salem, OR, Josh Shapiro, Attorney General Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA, Peter F. Neronha, Attorney General, State of Rhode Island, Providence, RI, Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, State of Vermont, Montpelier, VT, Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Virginia, Richmond, VA, Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General, State of Washington, Seattle, WA, Joshua L. Kaul, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Karl A. Racine, Attorney General, District of Columbia, Washington, DC, Matthew Jerzyk, City Solicitor, City of Central Falls, Central Falls, RI, Mark A. Flessner, Corporation Counsel, City of Chicago, Chicago, IL, Zachary M. Klein, City Attorney, City of Columbus, Columbus, OH, James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, City of New York, New York, NY, Marcel S. Pratt, City Solicitor, City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, Cris Meyer, City Attorney, City of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ, Yvonne S. Hilton, City Solicitor, City of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, Jeffrey Dana, City Solicitor, City of Providence, Providence, RI, Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, Peter S. Holmes, City Attorney, City of Seattle, Seattle, WA, Jo Anne Bernal, County Attorney, County of El Paso, El Paso, TX, Rolando L. Rios, Special Counsel, Counties of Hidalgo and Cameron, San Antonio, TX, Gary W. Kuc, County Solicitor, Howard County, Ellicott City, MD, Leslie J. Girard, County Counsel, County of Monterey, Salinas, CA, John Daniel Reaves, General Counsel U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC, for Appellees.

John A. Freedman, Elisabeth S. Theodore, R. Stanton Jones, Daniel F. Jacobson, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, Perry Grossman, Christopher Dunn, Arthur N. Eisenberg, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Dale E. Ho, Counsel of Record, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, Davin Rosborough, Sophia Lin Lakin, Theresa J. Lee, My Khanh Ngo, Cecillia D. Wang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Andre I. Segura, Edgar Saldivar, Thomas Buser-Clancy, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Texas, Houston, TX, Julia A. Gomez, Peter J. Eliasberg, Aclu Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, David D. Cole, Sarah Brannon, Ceridwen Cherry, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, Emily Rong Zhang, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, San Francisco, CA, for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

141 S.Ct. 533

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, 2561-2562, 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

141 S.Ct. 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 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, 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).

This case arises from one of several challenges to the memorandum brought by various States, local governments, organizations, and individuals. A three-judge District Court held that the plaintiffs, appellees here, had standing to proceed in federal court because the memorandum was chilling aliens and their families from responding to the census, thereby degrading the quality of census data used to allocate federal funds and forcing some plaintiffs to divert resources to combat the chilling effect. –––– F. Supp. 3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2020 WL 5422959, *13–*15 (SDNY, Sept. 10, 2020) (per curiam ). According to the District Court, the memorandum violates § 141(b) by ordering the Secretary to produce two sets of numbers—a valid tabulation derived from the census, and an invalid tabulation excluding aliens based on administrative records outside the census. Id., at ––––, 2020 WL 5422959, *27. The District Court also ruled that the exclusion of aliens on the basis of legal status would contravene the requirement in § 2a(a) that the President state the "whole number of persons in each State" for purposes of apportionment. Id., at ––––, 2020 WL 5422959, *32. The District Court declared the memorandum unlawful and enjoined the Secretary from including the information needed to implement the memorandum in his § 141(b) report to the President. Id., at ––––, 2020 WL 5422959, *35. The Government appealed, and we postponed consideration of our jurisdiction. 592 U.S. ––––, ––– S.Ct. ––––, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, 2020 WL 6811251 (2020).

A foundational principle of Article III is that "an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation." Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. , 568 U.S. 85, 90–91, 133 S.Ct. 721, 184 L.Ed.2d 553 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). As the plaintiffs concede, any chilling effect from the memorandum dissipated upon the conclusion of the census response period. The plaintiffs now seek to substitute an alternative theory of a "legally

141 S.Ct. 535

cognizable injury" premised on the threatened impact of an unlawful apportionment on congressional representation and federal funding. Id., at 100, 133 S.Ct. 721. As the case comes to us, however, we conclude that it does not—at this time—present a dispute "appropriately resolved through the judicial process." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 157, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Two related doctrines of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
86 practice notes
  • Brnovich v. Biden, CV-21-01568-PHX-MTL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • January 27, 2022
    ...depend on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Trump v. New York, 592 U.S. -, 141 S.Ct. 530, 535 (2020) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). While his exemption request is pending with the Marshals Service, Rebl......
  • Earl v. The Boeing Co., Civil Action 4:19-cv-507
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • September 3, 2021
    ...Oakland Univ. Bd. of Trs., 639 F.3d 711, 713 (6th Cir. 2011). “[O]riginating in the case-or-controversy requirement, ” Trump v. New York, 141 S.Ct. 530, 535 (2020), the standing doctrine “rations the exercise of judicial power by determining who is entitled to invoke the power of the federa......
  • Standage v. Braithwaite, Civil Action No. ELH-20-2830
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • December 22, 2020
    ...Court just dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Presidential Memorandum in a companion case to Useche. See Trump v. New York, 141 S. Ct. 530 ( 2020) (per curiam). There, the six-member majority of the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of a three-judge district court in the Southern ......
  • Memphis A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Hargett, No. 20-6141
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 22, 2021
    ...implied that in certain cases a plaintiff may have to maintain standing throughout the lawsuit. See Trump v. New York , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 530, 536–37, 208 L.Ed.2d 365 (2020) (per curiam) (dismissing a case for lack of both standing and ripeness after the plaintiffs’ basis for standi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
87 cases
  • Brnovich v. Biden, CV-21-01568-PHX-MTL
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • January 27, 2022
    ...depend on “contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.” Trump v. New York, 592 U.S. -, 141 S.Ct. 530, 535 (2020) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). While his exemption request is pending with the Marshals Service, Rebl......
  • Dye v. MLD Mortg. Inc., Civil Action No. ELH-19-3304
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • July 16, 2021
    ...justiciable]. First, a plaintiff mustPage 22 demonstrate standing.... Second, the case must be 'ripe.'" Trump v. New York, ___ U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 530, 535 (2020) (internal citations omitted); see Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997) ("One element of the case-or-controversy requirement"......
  • Nat'l Urban League v. Ross, Case No. 20-CV-05799-LHK
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • December 22, 2020
    ...data." New York v. Trump , 485 F.Supp.3d 422, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (three-judge court), vacated on ripeness grounds , 592 U.S. ––––, 141 S.Ct. 530, 208 L.Ed.2d 365 (2020) (per curiam); see also Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Ac......
  • S.B. v. Lee, 3:21-CV-00317-JRG-DCP
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • October 12, 2021
    ...is “dependent on ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all, '” Trump v. New York, 141 S.Ct. 530, 535 (2018). The Knox County Board of Education contends that Plaintiffs' claims against it are not ripe for resolution because “[i]t is uncertai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Rights, Structure, and Remediation: The Collapse of Constitutional Remedies.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 7, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...2104 Structural No DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP. V. CUNO 547 U.S. 332 Structural No LANCE V. COFFMAN 549 U.S. 437 Structural No TRUMP V. NEW YORK 141 S. Ct. 530 Structural No ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE V. 576 U.S. 787 Structural Yes ARIZONA INDEPENDENT REDISRICTING COMMIS- SION BOND V. UNITED STATES......
  • Due Process in Removal Proceedings After Thuraissigiam.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 4, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...(1953). (290.) See supra Part II.A. (291.) See supra Part II.B. (292.) See Brief for the Appellants at 3,36-37, Trump v. New York, 141 S. Ct. 530 (2020) (No. 20366), 2020 WL 6487939. The Court dodged the merits in this case by ruling on standing instead. See Trump, 141 S. Ct. at (293.) See ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT