2nd Circuit Rejects Trump Administration Bid to Block Commerce Secretary's Deposition
A federal appeals court decided on Tuesday that U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must be deposed this week in a lawsuit over his agency's decision to ask about citizenship on the 2020 U.S. Census unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
October 09, 2018 at 06:05 PM
5 minute read
A federal appeals court decided on Tuesday that U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross must be deposed this week in a lawsuit over his agency's decision to ask about citizenship on the 2020 U.S. Census unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
The Trump administration now has the opportunity to ask the high court to review a decision by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York in September that allowed Ross to be deposed in the lawsuit.
The appeals court left a stay on his deposition in place until Thursday to allow review from the Supreme Court. Attorneys with Attorney General Barbara Underwood's office have scheduled the deposition for Thursday. The American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union are litigating the case alongside Underwood, who is leading a coalition of 18 state attorneys general in the lawsuit.
The parties asked Furman to compel Ross's deposition in September because other officials from the Trump administration had said during their own depositions that only Ross would be privy to internal conversations surrounding a decision to ask about immigration status on the next census.
Furman approved the motion to compel Ross's deposition because “his intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases,” Furman wrote in September.
The Second Circuit said on Tuesday that there was no reason to reverse that decision, especially when other officials who were deposed had pointed to Ross as a key source of information in case.
“The District Court, which is intimately familiar with the voluminous record, applied controlling case law and made detailed factual findings supporting its conclusion that Secretary Ross likely possesses unique firsthand knowledge central to the Plaintiffs' claims,” the court said. “As the District Court noted, deposition testimony by three of Secretary Ross's aides indicated that only the Secretary himself would be able to answer the Plaintiffs' questions.”
A spokeswoman for Underwood's office said in a statement that the decision is another step forward in their case against the agency's decision to ask about citizenship.
“The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to block discovery in our suit—and courts have repeatedly rejected their attempts,” said Amy Spitalnick, spokeswoman for Underwood. “You have to wonder what they're trying to hide. We'll get to the bottom of how the decision to demand citizenship status was made, as we continue our case to ensure a full and fair Census.”
Neither the Commerce Department nor the U.S. Department of Justice responded to a request for comment on the decision.
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to stay discovery in the case last week as they asked the high court to review a July decision by Furman that allowed extra-record discovery in the case. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the circuit justice for the Second Circuit, denied the request to stay discovery.
That was the latest in a series of decisions by federal courts rejecting attempts by the administration to halt discovery in the lawsuit after Furman's decision in July. He has since rejected two attempts by the DOJ to halt discovery altogether, and several others to block depositions and the release of certain documents.
Underwood's office is also scheduled to depose acting assistant attorney general for civil rights John Gore this week for their case. Gore allegedly “ghostwrote” a letter from the DOJ to the Commerce Department formally requesting that the citizenship question be added. The Commerce Department oversees the U.S. Census Bureau.
Discovery in the case is scheduled to end in the case on Friday, Oct. 12. Furman has set a trial date for Nov. 5 in Manhattan despite the administration's request to decide the case on summary judgment.
Underwood's office argued the case should go to trial to show the intent and motivation behind federal officials in adding the question, which was announced in April. The plaintiffs in the case have argued that a question about citizenship will decrease turnout for the census in states with large immigrant populations, like New York.
A lower recorded population could decrease the number of representatives those states are allotted in Congress and the Electoral College, the plaintiffs have argued. It could also mean less federal funding in areas like education and health care.
The Trump administration has said the question was added to better help enforce the Voting Rights Act.
Senior Trial Counsel Elena Goldstein and Executive Deputy Attorney General Matthew Colangelo are leading the case for New York. Kate Bailey is the lead attorney for the Trump administration.
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 AllBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1How to Support Law Firm Profitability: Train Partners Up
- 2Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 3Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 4Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 5X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
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