Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 17.0

10 

TRUMP v. NEW YORK 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

For  these  reasons,  I  believe  that  the  plaintiffs  have  al-
leged  a  “substantial  risk”  that  unlawfully  subtracting  al-
iens without lawful status from the tabulation of the total 
population that the President submits to Congress will in-
flict  both  apportionment  and  appropriations  injuries  on
them.  Those injuries are substantially likely to occur in the 
reasonably near future.  This case squarely presents a con-
crete dispute and we should resolve it now. 

II 
On the merits, I agree with the three lower courts that
have decided the issue, and I would hold the Government’s 
policy unlawful.  See New York v. Trump, ___ F. Supp. 3d. 
___, ___ (SDNY, Sept. 10, 2020) (per curiam) (Juris. State-
ment 83a–94a); San Jose v. Trump, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 
– ___ (ND Cal., Oct. 22, 2020) (slip op., at 72–85); Useche v. 
Trump, No. 8:20–cv–02225 (D Md., Nov. 6, 2020) (slip op., 
at 21–30).  Once again, the memorandum calls for “the ex-
clusion of illegal aliens from the apportionment base” that
will  be  used  for  the  “reapportionment  of  Representatives 
following  the  2020  census,”  and  orders  the  Secretary  of
Commerce  to  transmit  information  permitting  the  Presi-
dent to carry out that policy.  85 Fed. Reg. 44680.  The plain-
tiffs challenge that policy on both constitutional and statu-
tory grounds, arguing that it contravenes the directives to
report the “tabulation of total population by States . . . as 
required for the apportionment,” 13 U. S. C. §141(b), and to
include the “whole number of persons in each State, exclud-
ing Indians not taxed.”  U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, §2; 2 U. S. C. 
§2a(a).  Consistent with this Court’s usual practice, I would 
avoid the constitutional dispute and resolve this case on the
statutory question alone. 

While that statutory question is important, it is not diffi-
cult.  Our tools of statutory construction all point to “usual
residence”  as  the  primary  touchstone  for  enumeration  in 
the  decennial  census.  The  concept  of  residency  does  not