Does the Constitution require counting all residents, including noncitizens, in the census?
Executive summary
The Constitution and federal practice have long required the decennial census to enumerate the “whole number of persons” in each state — interpreted to mean all residents, regardless of citizenship — and federal agencies and scholars consistently state the resident population includes citizens and noncitizens [1] [2]. Contemporary political efforts and legislation seek to change that practice by excluding noncitizens or adding a citizenship question, but major legal and constitutional authorities and civil‑rights groups say such exclusions would conflict with the 14th Amendment’s language and longstanding Census Bureau practice [3] [4] [1].
1. Constitutional text and dominant interpretation: “Count every person”
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment directs apportionment “according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State,” a phrase courts, scholars and public authorities have treated as a mandate to count all residents — not only citizens — when apportioning Representatives and Electoral College votes [1]. The Census Bureau’s own FAQs and longtime administrative practice say the resident population counts include all people, citizens and noncitizens, who usually live in the United States at census time [2].
2. Administrative practice: how the Census Bureau defines who is counted
The Census Bureau states explicitly that “all people (citizens and noncitizens) with a usual residence in the United States are included in the resident population for the census,” and those resident population totals are the basis for apportionment data submitted to Congress [2]. This administrative definition has guided decennial counts and related data products for redistricting and federal funding allocations [2].
3. Historical and scholarly reinforcement: the 14th Amendment’s plain meaning
Legal and academic analyses reiterate that the constitutional allocation of Representatives turns on the “whole number of persons,” and thus the census traditionally enumerates residents “without regard to their citizenship status or legal right to live in the country” [1]. Scholarship published in peer-reviewed outlets and constitutional commentators cite the same textual basis for including noncitizens in apportionment [1].
4. Political pushback: bills and executive actions seeking citizen‑only counts
Recent political moves aim to alter practice: the U.S. House passed measures to add a citizenship question and to exclude noncitizens from apportionment counts, and the Trump administration in different moments sought to reintroduce citizenship questions or directives to change who is counted [5] [3] [6]. Proponents argue representation should reflect citizens only; opponents say the proposals are partisan efforts to shift political power and reduce representation for states with large noncitizen populations [5] [7].
5. Legal and civic‑rights pushback: constitutional and practical objections
Civil‑rights groups and legal advocates argue excluding noncitizens from apportionment would violate the plain language of the 14th Amendment and undermine democratic representation, noting congressional debates in the 19th century rejected citizen‑only apportionment [4] [8]. They also warn that adding citizenship questions or signalling exclusion can depress participation and skew counts, harming allocation of federal funds and local services [9] [4].
6. What the record shows about the practical census impact
Independent reviews and Census Bureau reports have found recent counts were broadly accurate at the national level, and critics of citizenship questions warned those additions could cause undercounts by discouraging responses in immigrant communities [9] [7]. Analyses point out that apportionment is a zero‑sum division of 435 House seats, so omitting noncitizens would change how that pie is split and would likely shrink delegations in states with larger noncitizen populations [10].
7. Limits of available sources and unanswered legal questions
Available sources document constitutional text, current Census Bureau practice and active political proposals; they do not resolve whether a future administration could lawfully exclude noncitizens without new legislation or a Supreme Court ruling, nor do they include any final 2025–26 court decision on a citizen‑only apportionment challenge (available sources do not mention a final judicial ruling overturning the long practice) [1] [3]. Whether changes would survive litigation remains an open question in present reporting [5] [7].
8. Bottom line for readers
The strongest, consistent evidence—constitutional text as interpreted by scholars and the Census Bureau’s operational rules—supports counting everyone residing in the United States for apportionment purposes [1] [2]. Political efforts to limit the count to citizens are active and consequential; they rest on competing legal claims and partisan aims and face sustained constitutional and civic‑rights opposition [3] [4].