State of New York v. Trump

Background

The opinion concerns two consolidated cases: one brought by the State of New York and other plaintiffs, and another brought by the New York Immigrant Coalition and other plaintiffs. The cases challenged a Presidential Memorandum relating to the census and the exclusion of people described in the opinion as illegal aliens from the apportionment base.

In an earlier ruling, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court had found the case ready for review based on the memorandum’s deterrent effects on the then-ongoing census, while expressing doubt that the plaintiffs’ alternative theory—harm directly resulting from excluding illegal aliens from the apportionment base—was sufficiently concrete for federal jurisdiction.

Supreme Court Proceedings

By the time the Supreme Court considered the defendants’ appeal, the census count had ended. The plaintiffs apparently conceded that the deterrent-effects theory was no longer available, leaving only the alternative theory. The Supreme Court held that this theory was too dependent on contingencies and speculation to support jurisdiction. It therefore vacated the district court’s judgment and sent the cases back with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Ruling

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed both consolidated cases without prejudice to filing a new lawsuit challenging the Presidential Memorandum if or when the plaintiffs’ claims again become ready for judicial review. The order disposed of the cases for lack of jurisdiction and did not decide the underlying challenge on the merits.

Effect

The dismissal was without prejudice, as the opinion expressly states. The order therefore did not bar the plaintiffs from filing a new lawsuit if their claims later become ripe for judicial review.