Two SCOTUS Vets Denounce Roberts's Census Ruling as 'One-Off' and 'Bizarre'
"It was an illogical opinion which would revolutionize Administrative Procedure Act review if anyone took it seriously," Jones Day's Michael Carvin said at a Heritage Foundation event.
July 16, 2019 at 03:22 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s majority opinion in the census case has drawn sharp criticism from several veteran U.S. Supreme Court advocates, including a prominent conservative lawyer who predicted the “one-off” ruling against the Trump administration won't be taken seriously.
Jones Day partner Michael Carvin, in his typically blunt style, called the decision “one of the more illogical and internally contradictory decisions that's come out of the Supreme Court in recent years.” The 5-4 ruling on June 27 blocked the Trump administration's effort to place a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial survey.
In his opinion, Roberts said the proposed addition of a citizenship question did not violate the Constitution's enumeration clause and U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision was supported by the evidence before him. But Ross' stated reason to add the question—enforcement of the Voting Rights Act—did not match the administrative record and seemed “contrived,” Roberts said in another part of the ruling, joined by the court's liberal members.
Carvin, speaking on a Supreme Court review panel sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, said “it literally makes no sense to talk about pretext” after upholding the authority to place a citizenship question on the census.
“It was an illogical opinion which would revolutionize Administrative Procedure Act review if anyone took it seriously—which I doubt anybody will because this will be viewed as other opinions of this ilk have been viewed, as sort of a one-off that really doesn't affect cases outside of the particular context,” Carvin said.
Time will tell whether and how the Supreme Court's ruling in the census case starts cropping up in federal trial and appellate decisions.
Carvin's comments echoed the dissenting view of Justice Clarence Thomas, who said the decision, by going beyond the administrative record to evaluate pretext, “is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only.”
Thomas was joined by justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Samuel Alito Jr. also dissented, arguing that the courts should have played no role in second-guessing the Commerce secretary's true motivations under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Kannon Shanmugam, chairman of the Supreme Court and appellate practice group at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, was on the panel with Carvin. Shanmugam said ordinarily when courts analyze whether agency action is arbitrary and capricious, they assume rationales offered are legitimate and then proceed to assess whether the government has a reasonable explanation for its action.
Shanmugam agreed with Carvin that lower courts “will be reluctant to apply [the decision] by its terms.”
But Mayer Brown partner Andrew Pincus, who filed an amicus brief in the census case on behalf of five former Census Bureau directors, pushed back at his fellow panelists.
“The reason for the agency decision has to be the real reason,” Pincus said. “That's the transparency in the process.” The problem for the Commerce secretary was that his reason for the question wasn't the real reason, Pincus said. He added: “I think it was actually the right way to apply the Administrative Procedure Act.”
A day after the Heritage panel discussion, the Federalist Society held its Supreme Court wrap-up event with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada, who also was critical of the chief justice's opinion.
The opinion, Estrada said, was “interesting and bizarre” because Roberts found that the trial judge prematurely ordered extra-record discovery but the chief justice then chose to review all of the evidence in the record, including the extra-record discovery.
“It's like saying, 'Yes, you did something wrong, but now that it's here, we'll take it,'” Estrada said.
President Donald Trump, abandoning the census citizenship question, issued an executive order July 11 instructing federal agencies to collect that information from existing federal records, a direction that observers said the agencies were already doing.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFDA Defends Rejection of Vape-Flavor Applications Before Sympathetic Supreme Court
Alston & Bird Achieves Higher Rating for Medicare Advantage Insurance Companies
3 minute read'Nuclear Option'?: Eli Lilly Taps Big Law Firms in Federal Drug Pricing Dispute
3 minute readSupreme Court Hearing on Facebook's Alleged Nondisclosure Yields 'Freakish' Hypotheticals
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: The Recorder and Law.com's California Legal Awards 2025
- 2The Week in Data Dec. 13: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 3Antitrust Class Actions Against CVS, Other Pharmacy Benefit Managers Are Piling Up
- 4Judge Grinds NY's Cannabis Licensing Regime to a Halt Again
- 5On the Move and After Hours: Barclay Damon; VLJ; Barnes & Thornburg
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250