UPDATE: President Donald Trump has just announced a sweeping plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the upcoming U.S. census, a move that could significantly impact congressional seat apportionment. In a post on Truth Social on Thursday, Trump directed the Department of Commerce to initiate a new census based on what he called “modern-day facts and figures,” specifically referencing data from the 2024 Presidential Election.
“This is an urgent and critical step towards ensuring our population count reflects only those here legally,” Trump stated. He emphasized, “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS.” This declaration has raised immediate constitutional concerns among legal scholars and officials.
Experts, including Professor Sanford Levinson from the University of Texas, argue that Trump’s plan is unconstitutional. They contend that the U.S. Constitution mandates the apportionment of congressional seats based on the number of “Persons” in each state, not just citizens. According to Levinson’s amicus brief submitted during the 2020 Supreme Court case of Trump v. New York, this policy fundamentally contradicts the Constitution’s intent.
The implications of Trump’s directive could be profound. If enacted, it would alter the demographic landscape of congressional representation, potentially favoring states with fewer undocumented residents. This could disenfranchise millions of individuals who contribute to their communities yet lack formal immigration status.
Legal experts point out that excluding undocumented immigrants from the census could set a dangerous precedent. The Apportionment Clause clearly states that congressional seats should be allocated based on the total population, which includes all individuals residing within a state, regardless of their immigration status.
Levinson’s brief elaborates on the historical context, noting that the Constitution’s use of the term “Persons” was intended to be inclusive. The Framers made a distinction between “Persons” and “Citizens,” with the former encompassing all individuals. “Excluding undocumented immigrants is at odds with the Constitution’s clear command,” Levinson asserts.
Trump’s previous attempts to implement similar exclusionary measures were blocked, but this latest initiative may gain traction. If it moves forward, the Supreme Court could ultimately need to address its constitutionality head-on, marking a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over immigration and representation.
As the situation develops, it remains crucial for citizens and lawmakers to engage in discussions about the potential ramifications of such policies. The upcoming months will be critical as the Department of Commerce begins its work on this contentious census.
Stay tuned for updates on this urgent matter, as legal battles and political discussions are expected to intensify in the coming days. The outcome could reshape the future of congressional representation for years to come.
