US Commerce Secretary Ordered to Sit for Deposition in Census Immigration Status Question Suit
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled that Ross' "intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases."
September 21, 2018 at 06:48 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must be deposed over his decision-making process behind including a question about immigration status on the 2020 census, a federal judge in Manhattan ordered Friday.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York, citing circuit precedent, said the question of whether Ross must sit for questioning “was not a close one.”
“Secretary Ross must sit for a deposition because, among other things, his intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases,” Furman wrote.
The deposition was sought by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood's office earlier in September as part of an effort to uncover the department's decision-making process for adding a question about respondents' immigration status on the upcoming decennial census.
In the suit, New York and 17 other states argue that asking about citizenship will decrease turnout for the census in states with large immigrant populations, such as New York. That could have a ripple effect by causing those states to lose representatives in Congress and the Electoral College. The attorneys general also argued that a smaller recorded population could mean less federal funding in such areas as education and health care.
In ordering Ross to be interviewed, Furman said that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit identified two exceptional circumstances justifying the deposition of high-ranking government officials: unique firsthand knowledge about the claims being litigated, and the inability for the information to be gleaned through better means.
Under these standards, compelling Ross to testify was appropriate, the court found. Ross clearly had the sort of knowledge about the reasoning behind the decision to include the immigration question. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency decision makers are required to disclose the basis for their actions, a requirement, Furman noted, “that would be for naught if the agency could conceal the actual basis for its decision.”
“If that evidence establishes that the stated reason for Secretary Ross's decision was not the real one, a reasonable factfinder may be able to infer from that and other evidence that he was,” in fact, trying to cover up a discriminatory purpose, Furman wrote.
It would be impossible to find out what the intent was behind the inclusion of the question through alternative means, Furman found. It wasn't merely the case that Ross was the decision maker. It was because “Secretary Ross was personally and directly involved in the decision, and the unusual process leading to it, to an unusual degree,” Furman said.
Ross himself acknowledged considering the move shortly after his appointment in early 2017. As early as May of that year the secretary had “manifested an unusually strong personal interest in the matter,” according to Furman, going so far as to lobby U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to submit a request for inclusion of the question, which Ross later relied on to justify doing just that, Furman wrote.
“In short, it is indisputable — and in other (perhaps less guarded) moments, Defendants themselves have not disputed — that the intent and credibility of Secretary Ross himself are not merely relevant, but central, to Plaintiffs claims in this case,” the court ruled. “It nearly goes without saying that Plaintiffs cannot meaningfully probe or test, and the Court cannot meaningfully evaluate, Secretary Ross's intent and credibility without granting Plaintiffs an opportunity to confront and cross-examine him.”
In an email, New York attorney general spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said the office was looking forward to “getting to the bottom of this as we continue our suit to ensure a full and fair Census.”
“As we argued, Secretary Ross has unique, first-hand knowledge of why the Trump administration decided to break with decades of policy and demand citizenship status on the 2020 Census,” she said. “Secretary Ross testified to Congress that DOJ initiated the request for the citizenship question because of Voting Rights Act concerns; yet documents show otherwise, instead reflecting Secretary Ross' concern for reducing representation of communities with large immigrant populations.”
Commerce Department representative declined to comment on the ruling.
Related:
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 AllWhen Police Destroy Property, Is It a 'Taking'? Maybe So, Say Sotomayor, Gorsuch
Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
SEC Obtained Record $8.2 Billion in Financial Remedies for Fiscal Year 2024, Commission Says
SEC Targets Rising Crypto Financier in $115 Million Securities Fraud
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
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