Justices, Appearing Divided, Weigh Legality of Adding Census Citizenship Question
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued the issue of adding the citizenship question was not subject to judicial review because Congress had committed such issues to the discretion of the secretary of the Commerce Department.
April 23, 2019 at 12:03 PM
7 minute read
The Trump administration's plan to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census encountered some skepticism Tuesday from the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices probed the reasons why the U.S. Commerce Department added the question and its potential impact on the census's accuracy.
After an extended argument, however, it appeared the Supreme Court could divide along ideological lines on what is the most significant Trump policy fight to come before them since they ruled 5-4 last term to uphold the administration's immigration travel ban.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued the issue of adding the citizenship question was not subject to judicial review because Congress had committed such issues to the discretion of the secretary of the Commerce Department.
Francisco warned that if the high court did review the issue, the justices would find themselves evaluating every question placed on the census for its impact on the count. He also said the Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted reasonably in choosing to put the citizenship question on the census short form when faced with uncertainty about the accuracy of alternatives recommended by the Census Bureau staff.
But Justice Elena Kagan told Francisco “there's a bottom line conclusion” from the Census Bureau that putting the question on the census would result in poorer data than the bureau's proposed models.
“The secretary can deviate [from the bureau's recommendation] but he needs reasons to do that,” Kagan said. “I searched the [lower court] record and I don't see them.” She remained dissatisfied with Francisco's list of reasons and added, “Your briefs are extremely well done. A lot of your arguments don't appear in the secretary's reasons.”
Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh pushed back against arguments made by New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood and Douglas Letter, general counsel to the House of Representatives by noting that the United Nations recommends and a number of countries do include a citizenship question on their census forms. Gorsuch also noted that for a period of years, until 1950, the U.S. census asked a citizenship question.
“What do we do with that history and the evidence of practices around the world?” Gorsuch asked both lawyers.
Underwood said the UN guidance cautions nations to be careful that the question does not undermine the enumeration. “It is useful information for a country to have, but the question is whether that information should be collected on a form whose principal function is to count the population,” she said.
During Tuesday's arguments—expanded from the usual 60 minutes to 80 minutes—four lawyers took their turn before the justices: Francisco for the Trump administration's Commerce Department; Underwood for New York and its co-challengers; the ACLU's Dale Ho for the New York Immigration Coalition, and Letter, who made his second-ever argument at the high court.
Just coming out of census argument at SCOTUS. Interesting that Trump Solicitor General criticized by several Justices for very same thing as AGBarr criticized for re Mueller Report: cherrypicking a few select facts from the Record&ignoring the rest. Must be somethin' in the water
— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) April 23, 2019
The justices have been asked to decide whether the decision to add a citizenship question violated the Constitution's enumeration clause; whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets the ground rules for changes in policy by federal agencies, and whether a district court can order discovery outside the administrative record to compel testimony of high-ranking agency officials.
The justices did not spend time on the constitutional issue, instead, focusing their questions on the reasonableness of the secretary's move under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The high court's decision is needed by the end of June in order to meet the deadline for printing the 2020 census.
The case stems from Ross' announcement, in a March 2018 memo, that the Census Bureau would add a citizenship question to the 2020 short-form census questionnaire. He claimed the U.S. Justice Department asked for the question in order to help to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
New York, other states and cities, civil rights groups and nonprofit organizations sued to block Ross's action. They claimed that a citizenship question would result in an undercount—by some experts an estimated 6.5 million people—especially among Hispanic, immigrant and minority communities who fear deportation of family members and friends. Career Commerce officials have said the decision to add a question would cause an undercount.
An undercount, the plaintiffs contend, would result in a loss of billions of dollars of federal funds and affect reapportionment of congressional seats. Ross' move, the challengers argue, violated the Constitution's enumeration clause and the Census Act, and was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Seven lawsuits were filed in four federal district courts challenging the secretary's announced plan. Three trial judges have ruled that Ross' reason for adding the citizenship question—which he stated under oath to a congressional committee—was pretextual and that he had pressured the Justice Department to supply a rationale long after he had decided to add the question. All three agreed the secretary violated the Administration Procedure Act and the Census Act, and two of the three concluded he violated the enumeration clause as well.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York in January ruled that Ross had committed a “veritable smorgasbord” of Administrative Procedure Act violations and had “alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him.”
From 1820 to 1950, every decennial census, except one, contained a citizenship question. Since 1950, the short form questionnaire—which will be the only form used in 2020 to take an “actual Enumeration”—has not included a question about citizenship or birthplace.
The Census Bureau has used the annual American Community Survey, which goes to about two percent of households, to collect demographic information about the population. A long-form census questionnaire, used from 1960 to 2000 and distributed with the short form, has, like the ACS survey, collected demographic information, including a citizenship question.
Nearly 50 amicus briefs have been filed by a wide range of states, local governments, businesses, historians, statistical organizations and others, with most supporting opponents of the citizenship question.
Read more:
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 AllWhich 1-Judge Division Districts Have Adopted Anti-Forum Shopping Guidance?
Bitnomial Exchange Preemptively Sues SEC Over Alleged Enforcement Conflict With CFTC
4 minute read'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
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