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

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
20-561	N.D. Cal.	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	OT 2020

Issue: (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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Petitions of the week: Telework taxation, a Kentucky abortion law, background checks at traffic stops and more (Andrew Hamm, December 4, 2020)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
10/29/2020	Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due November 30, 2020)
11/09/2020	Letter of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. submitted.
11/24/2020	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.
11/25/2020	Motion to affirm filed by appellees City of San Jose, California, et al.
11/30/2020	Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees State of California, et al. (Distributed)
12/02/2020	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
12/07/2020	Reply of appellants Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. (Distributed)
12/28/2020	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).
01/29/2021	JUDGMENT ISSUED.