Supreme Court Fast-Tracks Dispute Over Illegal Aliens’ Place in Reapportionment

September 30, 2020 by Dan McCue
Looking up at the entrance of the U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to fast-track a dispute over whether people living in the United States illegally must be included in the reapportionment of congressional seats.

Under federal law, once the decennial census is completed, the secretary of commerce must give the president a state-by-state breakdown of the total population, which in turn is used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives.

In July, President Trump — stymied in his bid to have a citizenship question added to the census itself — issued a memorandum directing the secretary to include information in his report that would allow him to exclude people who are in the country illegally from the apportionment calculation.

The formal request has profound implications for the makeup of Congress. According to the Pew Research Center, California, Florida and Texas would end up with one less congressional seat each than if every resident were counted.

Without that population, California would lose two seats instead of one, Florida would gain one seat instead of two and Texas would gain two seats instead of three.

Additionally, the Pew analysis shows Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each keep a congressional seat they most likely would have lost during the apportionment process.

Not surprisingly, Trump’s directive inspired a rash of lawsuits. In one, filed by Common Cause on behalf of the City of Atlanta and others, the plaintiffs argue Trump’s memorandum breaks with almost 250 years of tradition and is unconstitutional.

Also challenging the directive are a coalition of states led by New York Attorney General Letitia James a group of civil rights organizations; and the ACLU, which is suing on behalf of immigrant rights groups.

In September, a three-judge panel in New York temporarily blocked the administration from going ahead with the plan.

Last week, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, representing the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to fast-track the combined cases and schedule oral arguments in December, by which point it hopes nominee Amy Coney Barrett will have joined the court.

In its brief order Wednesday, the Supreme Court ordered those challenging the directive to respond to the government’s appeal by Oct. 7. As is their custom, the Justices did not explain their rationale for doing so.

Last year, a divided Supreme Court held the administration’s justification for including a citizenship question on the census was “pretext” and ordered it struck unless a better reason could be given.

Ultimately, the Commerce Department decided to abandon its plan to add the question. 

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

Mississippi Argues Supreme Court Should Overturn Roe v. Wade
Supreme Court
Mississippi Argues Supreme Court Should Overturn Roe v. Wade

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let states decide whether to regulate abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, the office of Mississippi's Republican attorney general argued in papers filed Thursday... Read More

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Deaf Woman’s Emotional Distress Suit
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Deaf Woman’s Emotional Distress Suit
July 6, 2021
by Tom Ramstack

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for "emotional distress." A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by... Read More

Supreme Court Strikes Down Disclosure Rules for Political Donors
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Strikes Down Disclosure Rules for Political Donors
July 1, 2021
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. In a 6-3 ruling authored by... Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Voting Restrictions
July 1, 2021
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged on the rights of Black, Hispanic and Native Americans voters. By a 6-3 margin, the justices held that a 2016 law that limits who can return... Read More

Pipeline Company Can Use Eminent Domain to Claim State Land
Supreme Court
Pipeline Company Can Use Eminent Domain to Claim State Land
June 29, 2021
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to rely on eminent domain to claim state land in its path. The 5-4 ruling by the court included both liberal and conservative members of the court... Read More

Transgender Rights, Religion Among Cases Justices Could Add
Supreme Court
Transgender Rights, Religion Among Cases Justices Could Add

WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they'll add more high-profile issues... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top