Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Trump v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 2020 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawArticle IIIStandingRipenessCensusApportionmentArticle IIIstanding

Facts

Following the 2020 census, the President issued a memorandum announcing a policy of excluding from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status, to the maximum extent feasible and practicable. The memorandum directed the Secretary of Commerce, when preparing the statutory census report to the President, to provide information that might allow implementation of that policy. The District Court found standing based on an alleged chilling effect on census responses and related resource diversion, ruled the memorandum unlawful, and barred the Secretary from including the requested information in his report. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, the census response period had ended and plaintiffs relied instead on threatened future harms to representation and funding.

Issue

Whether the challenge to the presidential memorandum was justiciable at that time under Article III. Specifically, the Court considered whether plaintiffs had shown standing and ripeness based on alleged future harms from a possible exclusion of unspecified individuals from the apportionment base.

Rule

A federal court may not adjudicate a dispute unless an actual controversy exists through all stages of the litigation. Article III requires a plaintiff to show a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury rather than one that is conjectural or hypothetical, and the case must be ripe rather than dependent on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or may not occur at all.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The President issues a memorandum directing the Secretary of Housing to prepare, if feasible and practicable, a supplemental state population table that could exclude certain short-term foreign workers from a future housing-allocation formula. Before the Secretary finishes the table, the City of Cleveland and several Ohio nonprofits sue, alleging they may lose federal housing dollars and that Ohio might receive less political influence in future federal planning.

Under the majority's approach, what is the strongest argument that the suit should be dismissed now?

Explanation. Article III requires a concrete, particularized, and imminent injury, and ripeness is lacking when the dispute depends on contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated or at all. Where implementation is qualified by feasibility and practicability, and it is unknown who or how many might be excluded, predicted representation or funding harms are conjectural. The majority emphasized that such uncertainty makes judicial resolution premature. (Derived from Trump v. New York (n.d.).)