Mobile Menu - OpenMobile Menu - Closed

Alabama Congressmen Mo Brooks, Bradley Byrne, & Robert Aderholt File Amicus Brief To U.S. Supreme Court to Protect Citizens' Equal Protection Voting Rights

October 30, 2020
Press Release

Washington, DC— Friday, Alabama Congressmen Mo Brooks, Bradley Byrne & Robert Aderholt submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. New York, a case to resolve whether illegal aliens should be counted for the limited purpose of allocating Congressional seats and electoral college votes that determine the election of the President of the United States.

By way of background, a three-judge panel in the Southern District of New York issued a September 10, 2020 order blocking Trump Administration efforts to protect American citizen Equal Protection one-person, one vote rights from dilution caused by the counting of illegal aliens in the allocation of Congressional seats and electoral college votes. The Trump Administration sought review of the lower court’s decision and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to that review request.

Congressman Brooks’ amicus brief supports President Trump’s Memorandum and references the pending federal Northern District of Alabama case of Alabama & Congressman Mo Brooks v. U.S. Census Bureau, which similarly challenges the Constitutionality of including illegal aliens in the 2020 Census count for the limited purpose of distributing political power among the states.

Oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. New York are scheduled for November 30, 2020.

Click HERE to view the amicus brief

Summary of the Trump v. New York amicus brief submitted by Congressman Brooks:

  • 14th Amendment Equal Protection, one-person, one-vote principles should be based on the population of persons lawfully in America, to specifically exclude illegal aliens.
  • The Southern District of New York’s decision errs by gutting long-standing Equal Protection, one-person, one-vote principles by including illegal aliens whose very presence is prohibited by federal law.
  • The Southern District of New York’s decision erroneously rewards “sanctuary” cities, counties and states that violate federal Immigration law by giving them disproportionate federal power in Congress and the election of presidents, to the detriment of law-abiding states like Alabama.

Congressman Brooks said, “Trump v. New York is one of the most consequential cases to ever come before the U.S. Supreme Court. It quite literally will determine America’s future for decades to come. Including illegal aliens (who, by definition, are transients and not residents of any state) in the census apportionment count undermines 14thAmendment Equal Protection, one-person, one-vote principles. That’s why the State of Alabama (represented by Attorney General Steve Marshall) and I support President Trump’s efforts to exclude illegal aliens from the 2020 Census count used to apportion political power among the states.”

Brooks continued, “There are anywhere from eleven million (2010 Census estimate) to twenty-five million illegal aliens in America (no one knows for sure). Those numbers equate to roughly 15 to 33 Congressional seats and electoral college votes unconstitutionally taken from law-abiding, low-illegal alien population states like Alabama and shifted to high-illegal alien population, sanctuary states like California. Alabama is likely to lose a Congressional seat and electoral college vote after the 2020 census if the apportionment count includes illegal aliens, which, in turn, significantly diminishes Alabama’s influence in Congress and presidential elections. Sanctuary states that flout federal law and therefore have high illegal alien populations should not be rewarded for their lawlessness.”

Brooks concluded, “The U.S. Supreme Court has a consequential decision to make. Will it support lawlessness or will it support the Rule of Law and Equal Protection, one-person, one vote principles that have been the backbone of federal redistributing law for many decades? I hope our amicus brief helps the Court understand the ramifications of this case and persuades it to correctly decide this matter in favor of American citizens.”

###