Trump Administration Rejects Idea That GOP Operative Shaped Census Citizenship Question
Attorneys for the Trump administration, early Saturday morning, argued in a response to the motion for sanctions that the plaintiffs’ claims weren’t factually accurate and couldn’t be proven, regardless of how the matter proceeds.
August 03, 2019 at 12:47 PM
7 minute read
The Trump administration on Saturday rebuffed arguments from civil rights groups that two government-affiliated witnesses falsely testified about the origin of a question concerning citizenship that was planned for the 2020 U.S. Census.
That question has since been removed from the national survey after the U.S. Supreme Court, in June, rejected the federal government’s reasoning for adding it in the first place.
Attorneys for the New York Immigration Coalition, a plaintiff in the litigation, moved last month to impose sanctions on the U.S. Department of Justice for allegedly providing false testimony about the question’s genesis. They claimed that a long-time Republican redistricting specialist, named Thomas Hofeller, had been involved in discussions on the matter.
The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, and law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer are representing the New York Immigration Coalition in the lawsuit.
Attorneys for the Trump administration, early Saturday morning, argued in a response to the motion for sanctions that the plaintiffs’ claims weren’t factually accurate and couldn’t be proven, regardless of how the matter proceeds.
“The various allegations on which this charge is based … rest on speculation and misrepresentations of the record—rather than actual evidence—and are now directly rebutted by the facts,” the filing said.
The litigation could take another turn in the future if U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York allows the plaintiffs to pursue additional discovery.
As part of their motion for sanctions, they’re seeking a series of documents from the Trump administration that were previously labeled as privileged, and consequently shielded from the lawsuit. Those documents pertain to how the citizenship question was crafted by federal officials.
That would include different drafts of a letter from the DOJ to the U.S. Department of Commerce formally requesting that the question be added to the census. That letter was written by John Gore, a senior DOJ official, who’s one of two witnesses at the heart of the plaintiffs’ motion.
They alleged in a surprise filing about two months ago that Gore, along with A. Mark Neuman, a member of Trump’s transition team, had failed to disclose Hofeller’s involvement in crafting the citizenship question. The DOJ has claimed that Hofeller had no part in the question.
Hofeller wasn’t previously claimed to have been involved in discussions on the citizenship question, but that changed when some of his digital files were produced as part of an unrelated case in North Carolina. Hofeller died last year before those files were made public as part of the litigation.
It’s now alleged by the plaintiffs that those files can be directly tied to the Trump administration’s justification for seeking to ask about citizenship on the census.
One of the documents unearthed in the North Carolina case, for example, contained a paragraph that was included verbatim in an alleged early draft of the DOJ’s letter to the Commerce Department. That early draft was allegedly penned by Neuman, who gave it to Gore to produce a final version, the plaintiffs said.
The final letter, while ghostwritten by Gore, was signed by Arthur Gary, another senior official at the DOJ.
But, in the filing Saturday morning, the DOJ claimed that Gore did not base any part of the final letter to the Commerce Department on the materials that Neuman gave him. That would make any conversations he had with Hofeller — which he admitted to having during his deposition last year — irrelevant to the final letter, the DOJ said.
“After their first and only meeting, Gore had no further written or oral communications with Neuman, and did not rely on the Neuman Letter, or any other information he received from Neuman, in drafting the Gary letter,” the filing said.
The final letter to the Commerce Department, the plaintiffs claimed, also contained “striking similarities” to language used by Hofeller in a study he conducted in 2015 on the use of citizen voting age population data for redistricting versus total population count. He was commissioned for the study by the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website.
The Trump administration rejected that connection in its filing Saturday morning as well, saying that Hofeller’s study, which was never published, wasn’t used by Gore in the final draft of the letter.
“That, too, is a makeweight argument based on purported testimony having no discernible bearing on this case,” the filing said. “Again, Gore neither relied on Hofeller’s unpublished 2015 study nor was even aware of it when drafting the Gary Letter.”
The plaintiffs in the case are scheduled to file a response to the Trump administration’s filing later next week, after which Furman will decide whether to grant their motion for sanctions or not.
Furman, who presided over last year’s trial in the Southern District over the citizenship question, has previously granted the plaintiffs a wide breadth on discovery in the litigation. Months ahead of the trial last year, he allowed them to pursue extra-record discovery, in a move that was long-opposed by the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court, in its decision in June, said Furman shouldn’t have granted that motion at the time, but that it was ultimately justified in expanding the administrative record.
“We agree with the Government that the District Court should not have ordered extra-record discovery when it did,” the decision said. “At that time, the most that was warranted was the order to complete the administrative record.”
He could choose to, again, allow additional discovery in the litigation while the plaintiffs pursue their motion for sanctions. That decision is expected in the coming weeks after the plaintiffs reply to the Trump administration’s arguments filed Friday.
The litigation from the New York Immigration Coalition was combined, last year, with a separate lawsuit on the matter led by the New York Attorney General’s Office. That office is not involved in the motion for sanctions, according to filings.
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 AllDeluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute readThe Lawyers Picked (So Far) by Trump for Key Roles in His Second Administration
5 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
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