Trump v. City of San Jose, California
Judgment vacated and case remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, on December 28, 2020
Issues: (1) Whether the relief entered — a
three-judge district court declared that the president's memorandum, which instructed the secretary of the Department of Commerce to include
within his census report information enabling the president
to implement a policy decision to exclude people living in the country illegally from the base population number for congressional apportionment, was unlawful and enjoined the secretary from including the
information in his report — satisfies the requirements of Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions
of law governing congressional apportionment.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
|---|
| Oct 29 2020 | Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due November 30, 2020) |
| Nov 09 2020 | Letter of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. submitted. |
| Nov 24 2020 | Motion For Expedited consideration of the Jurisdictional Statement and Waiver of The 14-day Waiting period for Distribution filed by appellant Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. |
| Nov 25 2020 | Motion to affirm filed by appellees City of San Jose, California, et al. |
| Nov 30 2020 | Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees State of California, et al. (Distributed) |
| Dec 02 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021. |
| Dec 07 2020 | Reply of appellants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Dec 28 2020 | The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Trump v. New York, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (per curiam). Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan, dissents for the reasons stated in Trump v. New York, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (Breyer, J., dissenting). |
| Jan 29 2021 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
