Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

11 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

turn, and has never turned, solely on a person’s immigra-
tion status.  The memorandum therefore violates Congress’ 
clear command to count every person residing in the coun-
try, and should be set aside. 

A 
First,  we  have  the  text.  The  modern  apportionment
scheme dates back to 1929.  See 46 Stat. 21 (1929 Act).  The 
relevant  language  provides  that  the  apportionment  base 
shall include “the whole number of persons in each State” 
“as ascertained under the . . . decennial census.”  §22, id., 
at 26 (codified at 2 U. S. C. §2a(a)); see 13 U. S. C. §141(b) 
(requiring the Secretary to transmit the “tabulation of total 
population  by  States”  as  required  for  apportionment  (em-
phasis added)).  The usual meaning of “persons,” of course,
includes aliens without lawful status.  This Court has said 
as  much,  and  the  Government  does  not  argue  otherwise.
See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 211 (1982).  Similarly, the
plain meaning of the phrase “in each State,” both in 1929
and now, does not turn on immigration status.  Rather, as 
we explained in Franklin, that phrase has always been un-
derstood to connote some idea of “usual residence,” picking
up a person who is an “ ‘inhabitant’ ” of the State.  505 U. S., 
at 804–805;  see also Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 13 
(1964).  Neither “resident” nor “inhabitant” takes account 
of whether someone is lawfully, as opposed to unlawfully, 
present.  See  “Inhabitant,”  Webster’s  New  International 
Dictionary 1109 (1927) (“One who dwells or resides perma-
nently  in  a  place”);  “Resident,”  id.,  at  1814  (“One  who  re-
sides in a place; one who dwells in a place for a period of 
more or less duration”).

Moreover, the statute (like the Constitution) explicitly ex-
cludes  only  one  category  of  persons  from  the  apportion-
ment, “Indians not taxed,” 2 U. S. C. §2a(a), though it is ev-
ident  they  “reside”  within  the  United  States.   Congress
clearly knew how to exclude a certain population that would