White House Acted in Bad Faith Over Census Citizenship Question, Judge Rules
A Manhattan federal court judge on Tuesday made a preliminary finding that there was “strong” evidence the Trump administration acted in bad faith when deciding to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census in ruling to move forward New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's lawsuit over the question about citizenship.
July 03, 2018 at 04:43 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM A Manhattan federal court judge on Tuesday made a preliminary finding that there was “strong” evidence the Trump administration acted in bad faith when deciding to ask about citizenship on the 2020 census in a ruling to move forward New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's lawsuit over the question about citizenship. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York made the finding in a ruling from the bench, Underwood's office said in a news release. The ruling came after oral arguments on a motion to dismiss by the administration, which was not decided Tuesday according to a spokesman from the U.S. Department of Commerce. The decision means Underwood's office may proceed with discovery in the lawsuit, which was filed in April by attorneys general from 18 states. The coalition is suing to block the Trump administration from asking about citizenship on the upcoming census. Underwood is leading the lawsuit. She hopes to learn through discovery what went into the decision by federal officials to reinstate the citizenship question. “Today marked a major win in our lawsuit to protect the census, with a federal judge ordering the Trump administration to provide vital information on how the decision to demand citizenship status was made, and what it may mean for New Yorkers and Americans across the country,” Underwood said in a statement. The attorneys general claim in their lawsuit that asking about citizenship will decrease turnout in states with large immigration populations, like New York. That could cause those states to have fewer representatives in Congress and the Electoral College. A smaller recorded population could also mean less federal funding in areas like education and health care, according to Underwood. “By demanding the citizenship status of each resident, the Trump administration is breaking with decades of policy and potentially causing a major undercount that would threaten billions in federal funds and New York's fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” Underwood said. The Commerce Department announced in March that the question would appear on the 2020 census. According to a press release, the U.S. Department of Justice requested the change in December 2017. Officials at those agencies thought adding the question would help better enforce the Voting Rights Act, the release said. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross then wrote a memo on June 21 about the decision, in which he said his agency had already considered adding the citizenship question before the Justice Department made their request. “Soon after my appointment as secretary of commerce, I began considering various fundamental issues regarding the upcoming 2020 census, including funding and content,” Ross wrote. “Part of these considerations included whether to reinstate a citizenship question, which other senior administration officials had previously raised.” “We are disappointed that the court in New York did not defer fact discovery until after a ruling on a motion to dismiss," the spokesman said. "We are confident that the plaintiffs' case is without merit, that any allegations of bad faith are specious, and that we will prevail in court. We look forward to continuing to work with the Census Bureau to conduct a complete and accurate 2020 census.” Underwood is joined in the lawsuit by attorneys general from Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.
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 AllLitigators of the Week: ACLU Takes on First Amendment Case for the NRA at SCOTUS
Litigators of the Week: Davis Wright Tremaine Gets First Amendment Win for Internet Firms Blocking Calif. Child Protection Law
Litigator of the Week: In Election Law and Arbitration Cases, Big Wins for Neal Katyal and Hogan Lovells at SCOTUS
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
- 2Special Section: Products Liability, Mass Torts & Class Action/Personal Injury
- 3The Elliott Management vs. Southwest Airlines Faceoff: Who Won and What Determined the Outcome?
- 4November Court of Appeals Roundup
- 5Trellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
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