Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 9

2 

TRUMP v. NEW YORK 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

warrant our waiting to decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ 
claim.  It is true that challenges to apportionment have of-
ten come after the President has transmitted his tabulation 
to the House.  See Brief for United States 16 (deeming as
preferable  “this  Court’s  normal  approach:  to  decide  such 
cases post-apportionment” (citing Utah v. Evans, 536 U. S. 
452,  458–459  (2002),  Wisconsin  v.  City  of  New  York,  517 
U. S. 1, 10–11 (1996), and Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 
U. S. 788, 790–791 (1992))).  The Government asked us to 
take that approach here.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7–8.  But we 
have  also  reached  and  resolved  controversies  concerning 
the decennial census based on a substantial risk of an an-
ticipated  apportionment  harm.    See  Department  of  Com-
merce v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U. S. 
316,  332  (1999)  (holding  that  it  is  “not  necessary  for  this 
Court to wait until the census has been conducted to con-
sider” government conduct that may affect apportionment).
And that is what I believe the Court should do here.  Wait-
ing to adjudicate plaintiffs’ claims until after the President 
submits his tabulation to Congress, as the Court seems to 
prefer, ante, at 4, risks needless and costly delays in appor-
tionment.  Because  there  is  a  “substantial  likelihood  that 
the [plaintiffs’] requested relief . . . .will redress the alleged 
injury,” United States House of Representatives, 525 U. S., 
at 332, I would find that we can reach plaintiffs’ challenge 
now, and affirm the lower court’s holding. 

I 

The  Court  reasons  that  “standing  has  not  been  shown” 
because it is too soon to tell if the Government will act “in a 
manner  substantially  likely  to  harm  any  of  the  plaintiffs 
here.”  Ante, at 4, 7.  As I have said, I believe to the contrary.
Plaintiffs  have  alleged  a  justiciable  controversy,  and  that 
controversy is ripe for resolution.