Trump v. California · ¶63

Ironically, as presented here, the Government’s ripeness and standing arguments contradict its contention that the District Court’s injunction causes irreparable harm. The Government says that it does not know “whether and to what extent it may compile the relevant lists” or “[w]hat role, if any, a State’s future decision to disregard its Citizenship List may play in a future investigation and prosecution”; it insists that “much remains uncertain as to what a final USPS rule might include or what the contents or uses of any DHS lists might be.” Application for Stay 3 (first and third quotations); Reply in Support of Application for Stay 5 (second quotation). But if implementation of Executive Order No. 14399 was hypothetical and uncertain at the time the Plaintiff States filed this lawsuit, how can it be that a limited injunction narrowly preventing implementation harmed the Government?…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.