Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 11

4 

TRUMP v. NEW YORK 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

and well-founded fear that the law will be enforced” and the 
Government  “has  not  suggested  that  the  newly  enacted 
[policy] will not be enforced”).  The memorandum also an-
nounces the reason for this policy: to diminish the “political 
influence”  and  “congressional  representation”  of  States 
“home to” unauthorized immigrants.  85 Fed. Reg. 44680. 
It notes that “one State”—now known to be California, see 
Brief for Appellees State of New York et al. 7—is “home to 
more than 2.2 million illegal aliens,” and excluding such in-
dividuals from apportionment “could result in the allocation
of two or three [fewer] congressional seats than would oth-
erwise  be  allocated.”    85  Fed.  Reg.  44680.   Other  conse-
quences will flow from this attempt to alter apportionment.
We have previously noted that “the States use the results 
in drawing intrastate political districts,” and “[t]he Federal 
Government  [also]  considers  census  data  in  dispensing
funds through federal programs to the States.”  Wisconsin 
v. City of New York, 517 U. S. 1, 5–6 (1996).

The  implementation  of  the  memorandum  will  therefore 
bring  about  the  very  “representational  and  funding  inju-
ries” that the plaintiffs seek to avoid.  Brief for Appellees
State of New York et al. 10. 

B 
Given the clarity of the Presidential memorandum, it is 
unsurprising the Government does not contest that plain-
tiffs have alleged a threatened injury.  Rather, it contends 
that both the alleged representational and funding injuries
remain “too speculative” to satisfy Article III’s ripeness re-
quirement  prior  to  the  President’s  actual  enumeration. 
Brief for United States 19.  That is because—although the 
Secretary’s  report  to  the  President  is  due  in  just  two
weeks—the Bureau’s plan to implement the memorandum
remains  uncertain  and  “depends  on  various  unknowable 
contingencies about the data,” and until “later in December 
or January, the Bureau cannot predict or even estimate the