The United States Supreme Court agreed on Friday to consider the Trump administration’s unprecedented bid to exclude illegal immigrants from the 10-year federal count used to award state seats in the House of Representatives.
At the request of the Trump administration’s attorneys, the High Court will hear an oral argument in this case weeks after the presidential election, by December 31, the deadline for receiving the number of states in which the president will be used. Said. For parliamentary allocation.
After the discussion, the Supreme CourtIt prevented the Trump administration from proceeding with the plan. It will overturn decades of practice and wipe out political influence.
California, Texas, and Florida will win fewer seats in the House of Representatives if President Trump’s replacement begins, but Alabama, Minnesota, and Ohio would otherwise, according to an analysis by the Pew Institute. Will keep the seats that would have been lost. -Partisan think tank.
The High Court also had the option of confirming or revoking the lower court’s order from a committee of three judges in New York without agreeing to hold a discussion. If Mr. Trump’s candidate Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed by the Republican-led Senate, the Supreme Court could have a conservative majority of 6 to 3 by the time the judge decides.
After the census, the constitutionally mandated process for determining the number of seats in each state takes place every 10 years.
Under federal law, the Secretary of Commerce, who oversees the US Census Bureau, is required to provide the president with a table of each state’s population within nine months of the date of the census. The president is then obliged to submit a “statement showing the total number of people in each state” to Congress.
The US Government has always counted both citizens and non-citizens, regardless of immigrant status, for the purpose of parliamentary allocation. The US Constitution stipulates that every state requires at least one representative, and that other seats in the House of Representatives should be awarded based on population enumeration.
Until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in the 1860s, enslaved African Americans were counted as three-fifths of people for parliamentary allocation purposes. American Indians classified as “tax exempt” were excluded until 1940. The Fourteenth Amendment also requires that representatives be allocated based on the “total number of people in each state.”
In July, Mr. Trump changed this practice, claiming that he had “the power to exclude foreigners who are not in legal immigration status from the apportionment base” because “people” were not clearly defined. I issued an order to do.
A committee of three federal judges in New York ruled that Mr. Trump’s proposed changes were illegal and rejected the discussion in September.
“One comes from the 10-year census, the other is not, it is the US policy to instruct the Secretary to provide two sets of numbers and use the latter in relation to allocation. By making the announcement, the presidential memorandum deviates and therefore violates the statutory system. ” “Second, the Presidential Memorandum provides for apportionment because, as long as Congress resides in the United States, illegal immigrants qualify as” people “in the” state, “as Congress used those terms. It violates the law. “
If the Supreme Court allows Mr. Trump to enforce his declaration, the executive branch will calculate undocumented immigrant figures and exclude them from the final tally used for parliamentary allocation. It is unknown which method to use. Last summer, the High Court blocked the government from adding questions about US citizenship to the census questionnaire.
Judiciary and commercial representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.