Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Per Curiam 

the Secretary to produce two sets of numbers—a valid tab-
ulation derived from the census, and an invalid tabulation 
excluding  aliens  based  on  administrative  records  outside 
the census.  Id., at ___, 2020 WL 5422959, *27.  The District 
Court also ruled that the exclusion of aliens on the basis of 
legal  status  would  contravene  the  requirement  in  §2a(a) 
that  the  President  state  the  “whole  number  of  persons  in 
each State” for purposes of apportionment.  Id., at ___, 2020 
WL 5422959, *32.  The District Court declared the memo-
randum unlawful and enjoined the Secretary from includ-
ing the information needed to implement the memorandum
in his §141(b) report to the President.  Id., at ___, 2020 WL 
5422959,  *35.  The  Government  appealed,  and  we  post-
poned  consideration  of  our  jurisdiction.    592  U. S.  ___ 
(2020).

A foundational principle of Article III is that “an actual 
controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is
filed, but through all stages of the litigation.”  Already, LLC 
v. Nike, Inc., 568 U. S. 85, 90–91 (2013) (internal quotation
marks omitted).  As the plaintiffs concede, any chilling ef-
fect from the memorandum dissipated upon the conclusion
of the census response period.  The plaintiffs now seek to 
substitute an alternative theory of a “legally cognizable in-
jury” premised on the threatened impact of an unlawful ap-
portionment  on  congressional  representation  and  federal 
funding.  Id., at 100.  As the case comes to us, however, we 
conclude that it does not—at this time—present a dispute 
“appropriately resolved through the judicial process.”  Su-
san B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U. S. 149, 157 (2014) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Two related doctrines of justiciability—each originating
in  the  case-or-controversy  requirement  of  Article III— 
underlie this determination.  See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. 
Cuno,  547  U. S.  332,  352  (2006).    First,  a  plaintiff  must 
demonstrate standing, including “an injury that is concrete,