The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that it would not decide a case involving how undocumented immigrants are counted in the U.S. Census. The ruling means that a Trump administration plan requiring two separate tabulations for the census — one that includes every person residing in the U.S. and another that excludes undocumented immigrants — can move forward for now.
The court stated that it was “premature” to come to a decision on the Trump administration’s alterations to the census.
If the alterations go into effect, they could result in profound changes to how states are apportioned members of Congress. However, the Supreme court stated in its ruling that if the Trump administration decides to use the census changes to determine how many representatives each state is apportioned in Congress (or how federal funds and programs are distributed across the country), litigants can bring forward a lawsuit at that time, the Court said.
In short, the Court ruled that litigants challenging the Trump administration’s planned changes didn’t have legal injury required to sue quite yet.
The three liberal bloc members of the Court disagreed with the ruling, with Justice Stephen Breyer delivering a blistering dissent against it.
“The plain meaning of the governing statutes, decades of historical practice, and uniform interpretations from all three branches of Government demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status,” Breyer wrote. “The Government’s effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this Court should say so.”
“Where, as here, the government acknowledges it is working to achieve an allegedly illegal goal,” Breyer went on to write, “this court should not decline to resolve the case simply because the government speculates that it might not fully succeed.”
Dale Ho, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who represents a number of the challengers to the Trump administration’s proposed policy, expressed that he doesn’t view the ruling on Friday as a loss.
“This Supreme Court decision is only about timing, not the merits. This ruling does not authorize President Trump’s goal of excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count used to apportion the House of Representatives,” Ho said in a statement.
“This fight isn’t over. If this policy is actually implemented, we’ll see them right back in court,” the official ACLU Twitter account tweeted.
The basis for making the changes to apportionment that President Donald Trump proposed in a memorandum authored in July indeed cuts against both law and precedent. The census, and how it is used to apportion House seat counts in each state, is laid out plainly in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that representatives are apportioned based on “counting the whole number of persons” — not citizens — “in each state.” Noncitizens are not explicitly excluded in the amendment’s wording.
Changes to how apportionment works, if it did go through, could result in as many as three states losing — and three other states gaining — seats in the House of Representatives.
If Trump does indeed attempt to change the apportionment numbers, a lawsuit would undoubtedly be refiled by the litigants of this case. It’s possible that President-elect Joe Biden, too, could reverse the attempt by Trump, if the case is not settled by the time he is inaugurated.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.