Trump v. California · ¶16
To see why, consider the unduly long “chain of inferences” necessary to support the States’ supposedly concrete injury. Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414–415, n. 5 (2013). The District Court first had to speculate about whether it would be “feasible” for the Secretary to create and transmit the Lists before the midterms. 91 Fed. Reg. 17125. But §2(a) “may not prove feasible to implement in any manner whatsoever.” Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 132. The court then had to guess how the Secretary might tailor his implementation to be “consistent with applicable law.” 91 Fed. Reg. 17125. Next, the court had to predict what “action” the Secretary would deem “appropriate” for implementing §2(a). Ibid. After all that, the court still had to estimate whether those actions would be taken “in a manner substantially likely to harm” the States. Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 132.…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.