Brooks, Byrne, Aderholt, Marshall file legal briefs supporting exclusion of illegal aliens from congressional apportionment
Four prominent Alabama Republicans on Friday went to bat for the Trump administration’s effort to only count legal American residents when apportioning congressional seats after the 2020 Census is over.
U.S. Representatives Mo Brooks (R-Huntsville), Bradley Byrne (R-Fairhope) and Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville) along with Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall were behind respective amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court supporting the president.
The legal question the four officials center their briefs on is whether the president can lawfully exclude illegal aliens from the count of people that determines how many seats each state gets in the U.S. House of Representatives.
All four of the Alabama Republicans believe that he can — and should.
That holding is key to a legal battle between President Donald Trump and the State of New York regarding the president’s memorandum that illegal aliens not be included in apportionment.
The implementation of the memorandum was blocked by a panel of three federal judges from the Southern District of New York in September, and the case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Both Brooks and Marshall have previously been vocal in their support of Trump’s effort on the matter.
In the apportionments following previous census years, the number of illegal aliens has been counted by the government, a practice the president and many other Republicans feel is unjust.
The court’s decision could have a major impact on Alabama, as many observers have noted the Yellowhammer State is one of those most likely to lose a seat in Congress after the 2020 Census is concluded; that loss could lead to a devastating loss of federal funding for core government services.
“Trump v. New York is one of the most consequential cases to ever come before the U.S. Supreme Court,” commented Brooks in a release on Friday.
“The Census determines political representation for the body politic—’the People.’ Illegal aliens stand outside the body politic, having neither affirmed allegiance to our country nor been recognized by it as lawfully residing here. Thus, including them in the apportionment dilutes the representation afforded to citizens and lawfully-present aliens who do form ‘the People,'” Marshall stated in summary of his thoughts on the case.
“Any apportionment that includes illegal aliens thus violates the Constitution’s process for apportionment and promise of equal representation,” Marshall concluded.