Appearing Divided, Justices 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
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
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.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
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:
Doug Letter Will Make 2nd Supreme Court Argument, Allotted Time in Census Case
Third Federal Judge Strikes Down Citizenship Question on US Census
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
© 2025 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: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
Litigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
'The Most Peculiar Federal Court in the Country' Comes to Berkeley Law
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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