Skip Navigation
Court Case Tracker

Useche v. Trump

Ten registered voters residing in California, Florida, Nevada, New York, and Texas are challenging President Trump’s attempt to exclude undocumented immigrants from the state-population totals that are produced by the 2020 Census and used for apportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College.

Last Updated: December 1, 2020
Published: October 27, 2020

Summary

Ten registered voters resid­ing in Cali­for­nia, Flor­ida, Nevada, New York, and Texas are chal­len­ging Pres­id­ent Trump’s attempt to exclude undoc­u­mented immig­rants from the state-popu­la­tion totals that are produced by the 2020 Census and used for appor­tion­ing seats in the U.S. House of Repres­ent­at­ives and votes in the Elect­oral College. The plaintiffs argue that a July 21, 2020 White House memor­andum direct­ing the Commerce Secret­ary to report data on undoc­u­mented immig­rants to Pres­id­ent Trump viol­ates the U.S. Consti­tu­tion, the federal Census Act, and other federal law.

This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Mary­land.  

Case Back­ground

A group of indi­vidu­als from Cali­for­nia, Flor­ida, Nevada, New York, and Texas sued Pres­id­ent Donald Trump, Secret­ary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, the Depart­ment of Commerce, the Census Bureau, and Census Bureau Director Steven Dilling­ham, arguing that the exclu­sion of undoc­u­mented immig­rants from the 2020 Census state-popu­la­tion totals used for appor­tion­ing congres­sional seats and Elect­oral College votes is uncon­sti­tu­tional and other­wise illegal.

The plaintiffs conten­ded that the Pres­id­ent’s July 21, 2020 memor­andum on exclud­ing undoc­u­mented immig­rants from the state-popu­la­tion totals used to calcu­late the state appor­tion­ments viol­ates consti­tu­tional and stat­utory require­ments that the Pres­id­ent include all persons in the congres­sional appor­tion­ment base, irre­spect­ive of citizen­ship or immig­ra­tion status. The plaintiffs also conten­ded that the memor­andum viol­ates the right to equal protec­tion guar­an­teed by the Fifth Amend­ment because it inflicts “injur­ies on non-white, immig­rant communit­ies and the states in which they reside.”

The plaintiffs asked the court to declare that the exclu­sion of undoc­u­mented immig­rants from congres­sional appor­tion­ment viol­ates the Consti­tu­tion and federal law and to bar the Commerce Depart­ment and the Pres­id­ent from imple­ment­ing the July 21 exclu­sion memor­andum.

On Novem­ber 6, the district court gran­ted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judg­ment and enjoined the federal govern­ment from imple­ment­ing the memor­andum.

Key Docu­ments