Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

5 

Per Curiam 

pervades which (and how many) aliens the President will 
exclude from the census if the Secretary manages to gather
and match suitable administrative records.  We simply do 
not know whether and to what extent the President might 
direct the Secretary to “reform the census” to implement his 
general  policy  with  respect  to  apportionment.    Franklin, 
505 U. S., at 798. 

While  the  plaintiffs  agree  that  the  dispute  will  take  a 
more concrete shape once the Secretary delivers his report
under §141(b), Tr. of Oral Arg. 64, 75, they insist that the 
record  already  establishes  a  “substantial  risk”  of  reduced 
representation  and  federal  resources,  Clapper  v.  Amnesty 
Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414, n. 5 (2013).  That conclusion, 
however,  involves  a  significant  degree  of  guesswork.   Un-
like other pre-apportionment challenges, the Secretary has
not altered census operations in a concrete manner that will 
predictably change the count.  See, e.g., Department of Com-
merce v. New York, 588 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 10); Depart-
ment  of  Commerce  v.  United  States  House  of  Representa-
tives,  525  U. S.  316,  331–332  (1999).    The  count  here  is 
complete;  the  present  dispute  involves  the  apportionment
process, which remains at a preliminary stage.  The Gov-
ernment’s eventual action will reflect both legal and practi-
cal constraints, making any prediction about future injury
just that—a prediction. 

Everyone agrees by now that the Government cannot fea-
sibly  implement  the  memorandum  by  excluding  the  esti-
mated 10.5 million aliens without lawful status.  Tr. of Oral 
Arg. 20, 63–64.  Yet the only evidence speaking to the pre-
dicted  change  in  apportionment  unrealistically  assumes 
that  the  President  will  exclude  the  entire  undocumented 
population.  App. 344, Decl. of Christopher Warshaw ¶11.
Nothing in the record addresses the consequences of a par-
tial  implementation  of  the  memorandum,  much  less  sup-
ports the dissent’s speculation that excluding aliens in ICE 
detention will impact interstate apportionment.  Post, at 5–