This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case challenges the President’s policy to exclude people who are not lawfully present from the Census count, arguing that the Constitution requires seats in the House of Representatives to be apportioned according to the number of persons in each state.
According to Government, the outcome will affect how congressional seats are distributed among the states, influencing political representation at the federal level.
Background and question before the Court
According to Government, the Constitution and federal law require that seats in the House of Representatives be apportioned based on the number of persons residing in each state.
The Census Bureau indicated it would provide the President with the information necessary to implement the Presidential Memorandum by January 11.
According to Justice Sotomayor, a central legal question is whether the word “person” in the Constitution and statute includes illegal aliens for purposes of apportionment.
According to Justice GORSUCH, the Court also considered whether the plaintiffs have standing and whether the issue is ripe for adjudication.
What each side argues
Appellant (Donald J. Trump) Position
According to Appellants, the district court’s finding that counting illegal aliens would chill participation is no longer relevant because the enumeration is complete.
Appellee (State of New York) Position
According to Government, the Constitution and federal law require that all persons be counted for apportionment, and the President’s policy of excluding non‑lawful immigrants conflicts with that command.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Barrett asked whether a long‑term undocumented resident who has lived in the United States for many years has a settled residence.
According to Justice Thomas, justice Thomas inquired about the purpose of the information for the President.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether excluding illegal aliens in a separate document would be permissible.
Justice Sotomayor asked if the statutory term “person” allows the exclusion of illegal aliens.
Justice Gorsuch raised the issue of standing and ripeness, asking why the case is not dismissed on those grounds.
Justice Alito asked whether every alien present on Census Day must be counted.
According to Justice Kavanaugh, justice Kavanaugh inquired about the feasibility of counting all persons.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the oral argument by noting the case was submitted.
- [1] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 44
- [2] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 54
- [3] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 57
- [4] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 62
- [5] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 65
- [6] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 81
- [7] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 88
- [8] 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdf, p. 98
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Government, apportionment determines how many seats each state holds in the House of Representatives.
According to Latino justice amicus, undocumented immigrants contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, underscoring the broader impact of counting decisions.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1d6b9578a52e6d774c2d-r1-227cc5b1b282b47b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.