Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

TRUMP v. NEW YORK 

Per Curiam 

particularized, and imminent rather than conjectural or hy-
pothetical.”  Carney v. Adams, ante, at 6 (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  Second, the case must be “ripe”—not de-
pendent on “contingent future events that may not occur as 
anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.”  Texas v. United 
States, 523 U. S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal quotation marks
omitted).

At  present,  this  case  is  riddled  with  contingencies  and
speculation that impede judicial review.  The President, to 
be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without 
lawful status from the apportionment base.  But the Presi-
dent qualified his directive by providing that the Secretary 
should  gather  information  “to  the  extent  practicable”  and 
that aliens should be excluded “to the extent feasible.”  85 
Fed. Reg. 44680.  Any prediction how the Executive Branch
might eventually implement this general statement of pol-
icy is “no more than conjecture” at this time.  Los Angeles v. 
Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 108 (1983).

To begin with, the policy may not prove feasible to imple-
ment in any manner whatsoever, let alone in a manner sub-
stantially likely to harm any of the plaintiffs here.  Pre-ap-
portionment  litigation  always  “presents  a  moving  target” 
because  the  Secretary  may  make  (and  the  President  may
direct) changes to the census up until the President trans-
mits  his  statement  to  the  House.    Franklin  v.  Massachu-
setts,  505  U. S.  788,  797–798  (1992).    And  as  the  Govern-
ment recognizes, Tr. of Oral Arg. 39, any such changes must
comply  with  the  constitutional  requirement  of  an  “actual 
Enumeration” of the persons in each State, as opposed to a 
conjectural  estimate.    See  Utah  v.  Evans,  536  U. S.  452, 
475–476 (2002); see also 13 U. S. C. §195.  Here the record 
is silent on which (and how many) aliens have administra-
tive records that would allow the Secretary to avoid imper-
missible  estimation,  and  whether  the  Census  Bureau  can 
even match the records in its possession to census data in a
timely manner.  See Reply Brief 4–5.  Uncertainty likewise