October Term 2020 · Docket 20-366

Can the President Exclude Undocumented Residents From Census Counts?

New York and other states challenge a federal policy that excludes undocumented residents from census counts. They argue this violates the Constitution's apportionment clause.

Official caption
Trump v. New York
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Wall argued the case should be dismissed. He stated the district court found an injury based on a chill in participation. He claimed that counting is now over. He asserted that any chill has fallen away. He argued there is no live or ripe case now. He suggested the Court should hold the case for a couple of weeks.

    Ms. Underwood argued the Constitution requires apportioning House seats by the number of persons. She stated the President's policy refuses to count people in unlawful immigration status. She claimed this policy is flatly inconsistent with the constitutional command. She argued there is a substantial risk of injury.

    questions_and_argument_integration

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on whether the President can exclude undocumented residents from the census. This exclusion affects how House seats are distributed among states.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 30, 2020.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants the Court to dismiss the case as moot. It argues the census counting is already finished.

The states want the Court to block the exclusion policy. They argue it violates the constitutional requirement to count all persons.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues the case is over because the counting phase has ended. It claims any potential chill on participation no longer exists.

The states argue the policy violates the Constitution. They contend the law requires counting all persons regardless of immigration status.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Thomas asked if the issue is separate from the census itself.

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the December 31 deadline for transmitting census data is still operative. He asked if the Court needs to decide by that date. He also asked if the Court should assume the policy targets a specific subset of undocumented residents. He questioned whether the Court can intervene after the data is transmitted to the President.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome determines how the federal government counts residents for congressional representation. It defines the scope of the President's authority over census data. It impacts the distribution of political power among states.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON