Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (2020) 

19 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

memorandum  reasons, “[e]xcluding  . . .  illegal aliens  from
the apportionment base is more consonant with the princi-
ples of representative democracy underpinning our system
of Government.”  85 Fed. Reg. 44680.  Whatever the merits 
of that policy, it is not the approach to representative de-
mocracy that is set forth in the statute.  Congress chose in-
stead a view of democracy wherein the Representatives are 
apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each 
state,” not the whole number of voters, citizens, or lawful 
residents. 

The  Government  is  surely  correct  that  the  statute  pro-
vides the President and the Secretary some degree of dis-
cretion in carrying out their statutory responsibilities.  The 
concept of “usual residence” is an indeterminate one, which
“has continued to hold broad connotations.”  Franklin, 505 
U. S., at 805.  The exercise of that discretion may involve a 
number of judgment calls.  How long must a person reside
in a State before it can be presumed that she intends to re-
main?  Should prisoners be counted in the State of their in-
carceration,  or  the  State  where  they  resided prior  to,  and
where they intend to return following, their confinement?
In resolving such issues, the Executive’s judgment has con-
sistently been directed toward the meaning of “usual resi-
dence.”  A policy that draws lines based on immigration sta-
tus does no such thing.  Most aliens without lawful status 
have lived exclusively in the United States for many years.  
See Krogstad, Passel, and Cohn, Pew Research Center, Five 
Facts  About  Illegal  Immigration  in  the  U. S.  (2019).    The 
Government does not suggest otherwise.  Its own Residency
Rule, which treated ICE detainees’ residency  in the same 
manner  as  other  federal  prisoners,  recognizes  the  lack  of 
any  logical  relationship  between  immigration  status  and
residence.  Put simply, discretion to interpret and apply a 
statutory command is not a blank check to depart from it. 
That, I fear, is what the Government has tried to do here.