Published July 15, 2026 at 5:52 PM ET · Updated July 17, 2026 at 4:04 PM ET
RealClearPolitics examines how illegal aliens distort the U.S. census
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
RealClearPolitics examined how counting illegal aliens in the U.S. census affects apportionment and political representation. The Post Millennial separately reported on a plan by President Trump to replace illegal alien truckers with American veteran drivers.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when The Post Millennial reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from RealClearPolitics. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Trump v. New York reached this question but did not answer it. The Court dismissed for lack of standing the challenge to excluding unlawfully present noncitizens from the apportionment base, declining to decide whether the exclusion is lawful. Evenwel v. Abbott confirms that apportioning by total population is permissible. Whether noncitizens may be excluded remains unsettled, with litigation now pending.
Trump v. New York 592 U.S. 125 (2020)
Vote: Per curiam; 6-3 (vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of standing… · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The challenge to the President's July 21, 2020 memorandum — which directed the Secretary of Commerce to provide apportionment information that would allow the President to try to exclude unlawfully present noncitizens from the base — was premature. The plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and the case was not ripe: it was not clear the policy would be carried out, how many people it would affect, or whether it would change any state's apportionment. The Court expressed no view on the merits (whether noncitizens may lawfully be excluded from the apportionment base).
Evenwel v. Abbott 578 U.S. 54 (2016)
Vote: 8-0 (unanimous in the judgment; the seat left by Justice Scalia's death in Feb. 2016 was… · Opinion: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
A state may draw its legislative districts to equalize TOTAL population, rather than voter-eligible or registered-voter population, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and the 'one person, one vote' principle. Constitutional history, precedent, and long practice all support apportionment by total population; representatives serve all residents, not only eligible voters. The Court expressly declined to decide whether a state MAY instead use voter-eligible population — it held only that total population is permissible.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
