Trump v. New York

Last updated

Trump v. New York
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 30, 2020
Decided December 18, 2020
Full case nameDonald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. State of New York et al.
Docket no. 20-366
Citations592 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Holding
Case was premature due to lack of standing and ripeness.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Per curiam
DissentBreyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan

Trump v. New York, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the 2020 United States census. It centered on the validity of a July 2020 executive memorandum from President Donald Trump to the Department of Commerce, which conducts and reports the census. The memo ordered the Department to report the estimated counts of illegal immigrants in each state, allowing the president to exclude them for purposes of congressional apportionment. The memo was challenged by a coalition of U.S. states led by New York along with several cities and other organizations suing to block action on the memo. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found for the states and blocked enforcement of the memo, leading Trump to seek emergency relief asking the Supreme Court to rule on the matter before the results of the census were due on December 31, 2020. The Court issued a per curiam decision on December 18, 2020, vacating the District Court's ruling and dismissing the case because lack of standing and ripeness made the case premature. The same decision was reached by the court on December 18, 2020, for the similar Trump v. Useche case. [1]

Contents

While multiple states vowed to bring the case back to the Supreme Court immediately after the required census results were reported, thereby establishing standing and ripeness, the Trump Administration struggled immensely with implementation (due in part to the Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York ). Ultimately, Trump's successor after the 2020 election, Joe Biden, issued Executive Order 13986 which required non-citizens to be counted in the 2020 Census, both for the purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment, thereby reversing the order issued by the Trump administration and ending the controversy.

Background

Article One, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution directs the population be enumerated at least once every ten years and the resulting counts used to set the number of members from each state in the House of Representatives and, by extension, in the Electoral College.

During the debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, "many members of Congress urged that only citizens or voters should be counted in determining congressional representation, insisting that foreigners who had arrived in America should not count for purposes of apportioning representatives to Congress." [2] After seven months of debate, this language was not adopted.

The 2020 census is considered to have become a highly politicized event under President Trump. [3] Trump ran on a platform to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the United States. As preparations for the census approached, the Department of Commerce, which manages the United States Census Bureau, announced its intention to reintroduce a question on the census asking about one's immigration status within the census's "short form" which would be sent to all households. The Department's intentions of this question were unclear, and many states, cities, and advocacy groups feared the question would lead some immigrants, including those with legal status in the country, to not answer the census, undercounting populations and affecting government representation and federal funding over the next decade. These states and other groups sued, and in the Supreme Court case Department of Commerce v. New York, the Court ruled in June 2019 that the rationale provided by the Commerce Department was arbitrary and capricious, and forbid the Department from including the question unless they could provide a better explanation. The Department opted not to include the question on the final forms that went out. [4] [5]

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Trump stated he still planned to use other means to estimate the number of undocumented immigrants as part of the census report. On July 21, 2020, he signed a memo to the Department of Commerce, "Memorandum On Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census". The order instructed the Department to exclude the estimated number of undocumented immigrants (those not covered by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965) from the totals when they submit their report documenting the census results by December 31, 2020. The administration argued that the apportionment clause of Article One of the Constitution does not define which "persons must be included in the apportionment base" for the census count. [6] Since the census has normally excluded immigrants that have only temporarily been in the country such as diplomats, the administration argued this gave Trump the freedom to exclude these undocumented immigrants. [7]

At least three separate legal challenges against the memo were filed within the week of the memo's signing. One case was filed by Common Cause in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Two others were filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York; one by a coalition of 22 states, the District of Columbia, 15 cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors, and another filed the American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union. All three suits generally argued that the interpretation of "persons" from the Constitution as argued by the administration was gravely flawed given past case history and how the census has historically been conducted, and that the memo represented another arbitrary and capricious rulemaking decision. [8] Analysis by the Pew Research Center based on population trends estimated that at least four states, California, Texas, Florida, and Arizona, could lose a Representative should illegal immigrants be discounted in the census total, while Montana would be set to gain a seat. [9]

The two cases in the Southern District of New York were combined, and its ruling was issued on September 10, 2020, blocking enforcement of the memo. The three-judge panel ruled that while the President has some discretion of how the census results are reported, the authority to deviate from the Constitution statute, requiring "a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State", can only be set forth by Congress, and thus the memo exceeds the authority that the President has been given by Congress, ruling it invalid. [10]

Supreme Court

Trump petitioned the Supreme Court for an expedited hearing given the nearness of the December 31 deadline following the District Court's ruling. The petition asks to challenge the standing of the states and cities to be able to take legal action against the memo, as well as to affirm the administration's interpretation of "persons" in the apportionment clause. The Supreme Court agreed on October 16, 2020, to hear the case, and it held oral arguments on November 30, 2020. [3] Observers to the hearing said that the Court, including its conservative members, appeared to doubt the claims that the President could alter who was counted via the census, but as there was yet no census data to review, the Justices also appeared uncertain how to proceed. The court observers believed that the Justices were likely not to act quickly to stop the order and may wait for the results to be collected and how that could impact federal representation to judge how to handle the case. [9] [11]

The Court issued a per curiam decision on December 18, 2020, which vacated the District Court's ruling and remanded the case to that court with orders to dismiss it. The opinion stated that there were issues with both standing and ripeness to the case that made it premature. The Court stated they did not consider the constitutional merits of the case: "Consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and that the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time." [12]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Breyer's dissent stated that the Court should have considered the case to evaluate the Executive Order since it was aimed to discount people from the census count. [12]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States census</span> Decennial census mandated by the US Constitution

The United States census is a census that is legally mandated by the Constitution of the United States. It takes place every ten years. The first census after the American Revolution was taken in 1790 under Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. There have been 23 federal censuses since that time. The census includes territories of the United States. The United States Census Bureau is responsible for conducting the census.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Reforming the immigration policy of the United States is a subject of political discourse and contention. Immigration has played an essential part in American history, as except for the Native Americans, everyone in the United States is descended from people who migrated to the United States. Some claim that the United States maintains the world's most liberal immigration policy.

Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the use of certain statistical techniques in the United States census does not violate 13 USC §195 or the Census Clause of the Constitution. The case was brought against Donald L. Evans, et al. by the state of Utah; Evans was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce at the time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 United States census</span> 24th US national census

The 2020 United States census was the 24th decennial United States census. Census Day, the reference day used for the census, was April 1, 2020. Other than a pilot study during the 2000 census, this was the first U.S. census to offer options to respond online or by phone, in addition to the paper response form used for previous censuses.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</span> United States immigration policy that protects certain undocumented immigrants

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a United States immigration policy. It allows some individuals who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States with no lawful immigration status after having entered the country as children at least five years earlier, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for an employment authorization document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deportation and removal from the United States</span> American legal procedure

Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress.

United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.

The following is a list of notable lawsuits involving former United States president Donald Trump. The list excludes cases that only name Trump as a legal formality in his capacity as president, such as habeas corpus requests.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

<i>New York v. Trump</i> (DACA) 2017 American federal lawsuit on migrant detention

State of New York, et al. v. Trump et al. is an ongoing lawsuit against the rescission implemented by the Trump administration of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. At issue are Fifth Amendment protections of due process, information use, and equal protection.

<i>Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</i> 2020 United States Supreme Court case

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18–966, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with the 2020 United States Census. The case concerned the decision of the United States Census Bureau under the Trump administration to include a question asking whether respondents are United States citizens or not, on the standard census questionnaire sent to all households. That question had been purposely omitted from this "short form" since the 1950 Census because officials and sociologists thought it would reduce participation in the census. It has been used on the "long form" American Community Survey sent to a subset of households and used for statistical estimation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Redistricting in North Carolina</span> USA gerrymandering controversy (2010-)

Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dale Ho</span> American judge (born 1977)

Dale Edwin Ho is an American lawyer who is serving as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Prior to becoming a judge, he was the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's voting rights project.

References

  1. ↑ "Trump v. Useche". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved June 24, 2021.
  2. ↑ Gans, David H. (November 30, 2020). "The Supreme Court Must Choose Between Trump and the Constitution in the Census Case". Slate Magazine.
  3. 1 2 Barnes, Robert (October 16, 2020). "Supreme Court will review Trump plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from calculations for congressional seats". The Washington Post . Retrieved October 16, 2020.
  4. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court Leaves Census Question on Citizenship in Doubt". The New York Times . ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  5. ↑ Hurley, Lawrence; Chung, Andrew (June 27, 2019). "Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question". Reuters . Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  6. ↑ Excluding Illegal Aliens From the Apportionment Base Following the 2020 Census
  7. ↑ Clark, Dartunorro (July 21, 2020). "Trump signs memo aimed at omitting undocumented immigrants from census apportionment count". NBC News . Retrieved July 21, 2020.
  8. ↑ Lo Wang, Hansi (July 24, 2020). "Trump Sued Over Attempt To Omit Unauthorized Immigrants From A Key Census Count". NPR . Retrieved October 16, 2020.
  9. 1 2 Williams, Pete (November 30, 2020). "Supreme Court skeptical of Trump's plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from census". NBC News . Retrieved November 30, 2020.
  10. ↑ Lo Wang, Hansi (September 10, 2020). "Court Blocks Trump's Attempt To Change Who Counts For Allocating House Seats". NPR . Retrieved October 16, 2020.
  11. ↑ Stohr, Greg (November 30, 2020). "Supreme Court Hints It Will Move Cautiously in Trump Census Clash". Bloomberg News . Retrieved November 30, 2020.
  12. 1 2 Sherman, Mark (December 18, 2020). "High court rules challenge to Trump census plan is premature". Associated Press . Retrieved December 18, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.