State of New York v. Trump

What the order did

This is an order setting topics for oral argument, not a decision on the claims or motions. The court directed the parties to be prepared to address the issues listed below at the argument scheduled for September 3, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The order does not grant or deny relief.

Issues for argument

The court identified standing as a topic, focusing on traceability and redressability. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a legally recognized injury connected to the defendant’s conduct and capable of being addressed by the requested relief. The parties were told to distinguish between the plaintiffs’ alleged “apportionment harm” and “Census count harm,” and to explain how each alleged harm related to the requested relief.

The parties also had to address whether, assuming the plaintiffs were correct that the Presidential Memorandum discouraged census participation, the requested relief would remedy that injury and how effective a remedy must be to satisfy redressability. The court asked whether expenditures by the nonprofit-organization plaintiffs to address the memorandum would be remedied by the requested relief. It also asked whether, under Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, those expenditures must respond to injuries that were sufficiently imminent and impending to qualify as a legally recognized injury.

Another topic was ripeness, both constitutional and prudential, particularly regarding the alleged apportionment harm. Ripeness concerns whether a dispute is sufficiently developed for judicial decision.

Possible relief

The court instructed the parties to be ready to discuss whether, if the court agreed with the plaintiffs on jurisdiction, justiciability, and the merits of their statutory or constitutional claims, it should issue a preliminary injunction or grant summary judgment. A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment, while summary judgment resolves a claim when the law and undisputed facts require judgment for one side. The court also asked whether the alleged harm affected that question and whether effective relief could be granted without granting relief against the President himself.

Procedural details

The order stated that each side should anticipate 20 to 30 minutes for oral argument and that only one lawyer from each side could speak on a particular issue. It was signed by Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall, and Jesse M. Furman.