Trump v. California · ¶89

The Court applies language from our precedents to these misconstrued facts, primarily relying on two cases: Trump v. New York, 592 U. S. 125 (2020) (per curiam), and Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398 (2013). But the reasoning of those cases is not applicable here. Start with New York. There, the implications of the challenged memorandum were distant in time, and the plaintiffs conceded that its effect had dissipated by the time the case reached this Court. See 592 U. S., at 129–133. Here, by contrast, Executive Order No. 14399 sets strict deadlines for implementation, and the effects of that government action on election planning are already upon us. The New York plaintiffs’ standing argument was further complicated by the fact that the Government conceded that it could not “feasibly implement the memorandum” as written. 592 U. S., at 133. The Government has made no such…

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