Justices Add Census Case to April Calendar, Teeing Up Major Political Test
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the justices to act quickly to hear and decide the citizenship issue because, he said, June 30 is the deadline for finalizing the census questionnaire for printing.
February 15, 2019 at 01:39 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide the legality of the Trump administration's plan to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
The justices said they would hear arguments during the second week of the April argument session on the administration's appeal of a federal court order blocking the question from inclusion on the census questionnaire.
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco had asked the justices to act quickly to hear and decide the citizenship issue because, he said, June 30 is the deadline for finalizing the census questionnaire for printing.
The Supreme Court case is a consolidation of two lawsuits, one led by New York, joined by 16 states, seven cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the second filed by the New York Immigration Coalition, represented by Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union and a team of lawyers from Arnold & Porter.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Friday:
“Adding a question about citizenship to the Census would incite widespread fear in immigrant communities and greatly impair the accuracy of population counts. Any underrepresentation of the real number of people living in states and localities could reduce representation in Congress and funding for New York and other states and localities across the country.”
The Trump administration is seeking to overturn U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York's Jan. 15 ruling that found that U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other government officials had violated federal laws “in multiple independent ways” in moving to include the citizenship question.
By granting review of that ruling, the justices—at the administration's request—pre-empted review of Furman's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
“In light of the immense nationwide importance of the decennial census, if the district court's ruling is to stand, it should be this court that reviews it,” Francisco wrote in his petition at the Supreme Court.
They challengers contend the addition of a citizenship question would deter participation in the survey and cause an undercount of the national population. They also claimed the Trump administration's decision discriminated against communities of color.
The U.S. House of Representatives filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers in the Supreme Court.
“Because, according to the department's own calculations, the 2020 Census will fall well short of the goal of actual enumeration if a citizenship question is included, the district court's decision finding inclusion of that question to be unlawful should be affirmed,” House general counsel Douglas Letter wrote in the brief.
Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center also were on the House's brief.
Lawsuits challenging the government's decision have been filed in California and Maryland where trials are underway in four of them.
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 All3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Orange Belongs to All: U-Haul Suit Argues Rival Public Storage Cannot Claim the Color
- 2Continuing Consolidation: The Biggest Legal Tech M&As of 2024
- 3FTC Announces HSR Final Rulemaking Impacting Premerger Filings
- 4NJ Cut Down on Open Judgeships in 2024, But Dozens of Vacancies Linger
- 5How to Add PR When You’ve Already Taken an ‘L’
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