Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Trump’s Bid to Exclude Illegal Immigrants from Census

Supreme Court Casts Doubt on Trump’s Bid to Exclude Illegal Immigrants from Census
U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude millions of immigrants in the country illegally from the 2020 census count appeared to fizzle at the Supreme Court on Monday.

California officials feared that Trump’s policy, if put into effect in the last weeks of his presidency, could not only diminish the state’s power in Congress, but could cost cities, counties and school districts hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds over the decade.

But none of the justices sounded prepared to endorse Trump’s policy, and two of Trump’s appointees — Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — told an administration lawyer they doubted the legality of excluding millions of longtime residents from the census count.

Barrett said that the Constitution’s wording and original history called for counting all residents, and that that has been the unbroken practice for more than two centuries. Additionally the 14th Amendment says political power will be divided among the states after counting “the whole number of persons in each state.”

Barrett said the law has defined “persons” as those who reside in the state, not just citizens or voters.

“If an undocumented person has been in the country for 20 years, even if illegally, why wouldn’t that person have a settled residence here?” Barrett told acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall. “And you concede that illegal aliens have never been excluded as a category from the census,” she added.

During Monday’s argument in the case of Trump vs. New York, the justices mostly debated whether the outgoing Trump administration could seek to exclude a small category of these immigrants, such as those who are held in detention awaiting deportation.

In July, Trump issued a memo ordering the Census Bureau to exclude to the “maximum extent” possible those who were not legal residents. Trump’s memo took direct aim at California and said the state could lose two or three seats in Congress for the next decade.

But lower courts have ruled Trump’s order illegal, and the administration’s arguments for reviving it gained no traction Monday.

Trump’s July 2020 memo said one unnamed state, a clear reference to California, “is home to more than 2.2 million” immigrants in the country illegally, and it predicted that including them in the census count “could result in the allocation of two or three more congressional seats than would otherwise be allocated.”

A year before Trump issued the memo, the Supreme Court had struck down the Commerce Department’s plan to add a citizenship question to the census. Having lost on that front, Trump and his lawyers suggested the Census Bureau would use other government records to determine who was in the country illegally.

By law, the Commerce Department is supposed to deliver census data to the president by Dec. 31, but officials have said that report may be delayed because of Trump’s order.

Wall, the administration lawyer, admitted the bureau has struggled to determine how many immigrants in the country illegally have been counted in the census. The experts “still don’t know how many illegal aliens they will able to identify,” he told the court.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. questioned whether the court needed to rule soon or instead delay a decision until the Commerce Department submits its first report on the census tally. However, by then, the census could be in the hands of incoming Biden administration.

New York’s Solicitor General Barbara Underwood urged the justices to rule that Trump’s memo was illegal and unconstitutional. They noted Congress by law told the government it wanted a tally of the “total population” divided by the states. These data are used each decade to divide the seats in the House of Representatives as well as the allocation of electoral votes for president.

But Wall, the administration lawyer, said the government should have the authority to exclude from the census count immigrants who have been detained after crossing the border as well as those who are slated for deportation.

ACLU lawyer Dale Ho said the court should not break with American history.

“No court, no Congress and no executive branch before now has ever thought that undocumented immigrants could be excluded from the whole number of persons in each state,” he said. “Undocumented immigrants contribute $1 trillion in GDP, $20 billion in federal taxes. Eighty percent are essential workers. One in four are homeowners and pay property taxes. They’re our neighbors, our co-workers, and our family members. They are usual residents under any plausible definition of that term.”

___

(c)2020 Los Angeles Times

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

A+
a-
  • census
  • Donald Trump
  • illigal immigrants
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    July 8, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Trump Effort to Slash Federal Workforce

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a lower court’s order that had prevented the Trump administration from moving... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday lifted a lower court’s order that had prevented the Trump administration from moving forward with planned mass layoffs and the dismantling of a number of federal agencies. In its unsigned ruling, the court said an executive order signed by... Read More

    July 3, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court to Decide Liability of Transit Agencies After Accidents

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Thursday to determine whether New Jersey Transit is immune from liability as a state agency. The public transit agency was sued by two men who were hit and injured by commuter buses in separate accidents. In one case of a... Read More

    July 3, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Justices to Take Up Two Transgender Athlete Cases Next Term

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws that bar transgender athletes from girls’ and women’s sports teams. The two cases come to the court from Idaho and West Virginia. Just last month, a sharply... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court to Review $1B Cox Digital Copyright Case

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a copyright dispute between Cox Communications and major music labels that could set the stage for a landmark decision on copyright infringement liability in the digital era. The case is Cox Communications, Inc., et al. v.... Read More

    July 1, 2025
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Agrees to Rehear Case Seeking End to Campaign Finance Limits

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some... Read More

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a lawsuit during its next term that seeks to end some restrictions on campaign spending by political parties. The limits were imposed during the Nixon administration to prevent political parties from coordinating efforts with candidates on how... Read More

    Supreme Court Throws Out Appellate Rulings in Favor of Transgender People in Four States

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in four states following the... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday threw out appellate rulings in favor of transgender people in four states following the justices' recent decision upholding a Tennessee ban on certain medical treatment for transgender youths. But the justices took no action in cases from Arizona, Idaho and West Virginia... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top