The Court Stands on Principle The Justices toss a census case ginned up by Democratic states.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-court-stands-on-principle-11608334424?mod=opinion_lead_pos2
The fuss over President Trump’s order to exclude undocumented immigrants from the decennial reapportionment may be much ado about nothing. That’s essentially what a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court said Friday in dismissing a legal challenge (Trump v. New York) by Democratic states for lack of standing.
“A foundational principle of Article III is that ‘an actual controversy must exist not only at the time the complaint is filed, but through all stages of the litigation,’” the Court noted in an unsigned ruling with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting.
Democratic states claimed they would lose federal funding and Congressional seats if the President’s order was implemented, though these harms are speculative. President Trump’s order directed the Commerce Secretary to gather information “to the extent practicable” and exclude undocumented aliens “to the extent feasible.”
The Justice Department conceded during oral arguments this month that the government lacked records on many of the 10.5 million or so undocumented immigrants in the country. It was also unclear whether the Census Bureau could even mesh the records in its possession with the decennial enumeration.
In other words, the order might not even be implemented, let alone harm Democratic states. “At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review,” the Court noted.
Article III’s foundational principle of legal standing requires a plaintiff to demonstrate “‘an injury that is concrete, particularized, and imminent,’” the Court explained, and that a case be “‘ripe’—not dependent on ‘contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.’” Democratic states can always sue after reapportionment if they think they’ve been harmed.
President Trump has been beating up the Supreme Court for dismissing on “standing” grounds the Texas lawsuit challenging the election results of four battleground states. But this week that bedrock legal principle worked in his favor. Strictly enforcing the Article III standing requirement allows the Court to avoid needlessly delving into the political thicket, which is a goal that even liberals should share. The Court is the consistent party here, not the partisans on the left or right.
Comments are closed.
