Trump v. New York
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Trump v. New York and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Trump v. New York.
In Trump v. New York, the Supreme Court addressed the President's memorandum to exclude certain individuals from the 2020 census apportionment base. The Court found that the case was not ripe for review and lacked jurisdiction due to insufficient standing. The decision vacated and remanded the lower court's ruling.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Trump v. New York.
The Court held that it lacks jurisdiction because standing has not been shown and the case is not ripe for review.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Trump v. New York. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Standing is relevant to Trump v. New York
The Court's decision was based on the lack of standing, as the plaintiffs could not show concrete harm.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The Court lacks jurisdiction because standing has not been shown and the case is not ripe for the Court's review.
-
Why Executive Power is relevant to Trump v. New York
The case involves the President's authority to direct the exclusion of certain individuals from the census apportionment base.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The administration has made plain its desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Trump v. New York
The Court evaluated whether the case was suitable for judicial review at the current stage.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Court concludes that the constitutional and statutory claims presented are not suitable for adjudication at this time.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Trump v. New York that support the summary and concepts above.
The Court lacks jurisdiction because standing has not been shown and the case is not ripe for the Court's review.
The plaintiffs currently suffer no concrete harm from the challenged policy itself.
The constitutional and statutory claims presented are not suitable for adjudication at this time.
