Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 12

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

5 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

results.”  Reply Brief for United States 4.  The Government 
contends  that  given  these  uncertainties,  “it  is  far  from  a
‘virtual certainty’ that any appellee will ‘lose a [House] seat’ 
when the Memorandum is implemented.”  Id., at 5.  It also 
says it is “too speculative” that plaintiffs will be dispropor-
tionately deprived of federal funding, as it is not yet certain
that the tabulation the President submits to Congress for 
apportionment purposes will also be used as the total pop-
ulation for federal statutes that apportion funds on the ba-
sis  of  States’  proportional  population.    Brief  for  United 
States 19–20.  At root, the Government contends that “ripe-
ness  principles  support  deferring  judicial  review  of  the
Memorandum until it is implemented.”  Id., at 21. 

Whether viewed as a question of standing or ripeness, the 
Government’s  arguments  are  insufficient.    We  have  said 
that plaintiffs need not “demonstrate that it is literally cer-
tain that the harms they identify will come about” to estab-
lish standing.  Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 
414, n. 5 (2013).  Rather, an “allegation of future injury may 
suffice if the threatened injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or 
there is a “ ‘ “substantial risk’ ” that the harm will occur.’ ”  
Driehaus, 573 U. S., at 158 (quoting Clapper, 568 U. S., at 
414, n. 5).  Looking to the facts here, the memorandum pre-
sents the “substantial risk” that our precedents require. 

The Government’s current plans suggest it will be able to 
exclude a significant number of people under its policy.  To 
start, even a few weeks out, the Government still does not 
disclaim its intent to carry out the policy to the full extent 
it  can  do  so.  See  Tr.  of  Oral  Arg.  9–10  (stating  that  “we 
don’t  know  what’s  feasible,  about  excluding  all  illegal  al-
iens,”  but  recognizing  that  “some  subsets  are  going  to  be
much stronger cases for the exercise of [the President’s] dis-
cretion than other subsets”).  Indeed, the Bureau is commit-
ted to excluding as many people as possible even if it must 
act beyond the December 31 statutory deadline to do so.  Id., 
at 6–7.  And there is a “substantial risk” that it will be able