A ‘per curiam’ opinion from The Supreme Court of The United States is defined as…. “An unsigned opinion, written for the court as a whole by an unidentified justice, is called a per curiam opinion. In Latin, “per curiam” means “by the court”. Written dissents from per curiam opinions are signed.

The following quote segments are part of the 6-3 Per Curiam opinion:

20-366 Trump v New York

A three-judge District Court held that the plaintiffs, appellees here, had standing to proceed in federal court because the memorandum was chilling aliens and their families from responding to the census, thereby degrading the quality of census data used to allocate federal funds and forcing some plaintiffs to divert resources to combat the chilling effect.

At present, this case is riddled with contingencies and speculation that impede judicial review. The President, to be sure, has made clear his desire to exclude aliens without lawful status from the apportionment base. But the President qualified his directive by providing that the Secretary should gather information “to the extent practicable” and that aliens should be excluded “to the extent feasible”.

…..the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population. Nothing in the record addresses the consequences of a partial implementation of the memorandum, much less supports the dissent’s speculation that excluding aliens in ICE detention will impact interstate apportionment. –– The impact on funding is no more certain. According to the Government, federal funds are tied to data derived from the census, but not necessarily to the apportionment counts addressed by the memorandum.

The remedy crafted by the District Court underscores the contingent nature of the plaintiffs’ injuries. Its injunction prohibits the Secretary from informing the President in his §141(b) report of the number of aliens without lawful status. In addition to implicating the President’s authority under the Opinions Clause, U. S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 1, the injunction reveals that the source of any injury to the plaintiffs is the action that the Secretary or President might take in the future to exclude unspecified individuals from the apportionment base—not the policy itself “in the abstract,” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U. S. 488, 494 (2009).

At the end of the day, the standing and ripeness inquiries both lead to the conclusion that judicial resolution of this dispute is premature. Consistent with our determination that standing has not been shown and that the case is not ripe, we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time.

The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

I’m guessing either Justice Thomas or Alito wrote the per-curiam, but left it unsigned for the hell of it, since they had flat-out ‘got’ the treasonous typical Democrats….. again.

Somehow, “Him” realized ‘his best friends’ got got….. again - and this time didn’t want his name as part of ‘getting got’….. again.

Justice Breyer dissents, joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.

Translated from their ‘court-speak’: * ‘But…. but…. but muh undocumented travelers ! We need all those new Democrat voters to prevent any wascawwy Wepubwican - even RINO’s - from ever being elected to any office anywhere ever again ! No borders ! Anyone on American soil - however they get here - is to immediately be considered an American with extra rights over actual American citizens ! Sieg Heil President Harris !’*