After SCOTUS Loss, Trump Administration Pulls Citizenship Question From Census
The decision puts to bed more than a year of litigation brought against the Trump administration by civil rights groups and several states, including New York, which led one the lawsuits against the federal government over the question.
July 02, 2019 at 06:27 PM
4 minute read
The 2020 U.S. Census will not ask respondents about their immigration status, the Trump administration confirmed Tuesday, after a series of legal challenges led to a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the question last month.
The decision puts to bed more than a year of litigation brought against the Trump administration by civil rights groups and several states, including New York, which led one of the lawsuits against the federal government over the question.
New York Attorney General Letitia James called the development a “victory,” after the country's highest court questioned the motive of the Trump administration last month for choosing to ask about citizenship on the national survey.
“Today's news is a victory for New York state, for America, and for every single person in this nation,” James said. “While the Trump administration may have attempted to politicize the census and punish cities and states across the nation, justice prevailed, and the census will continue to remain a tool for obtaining an accurate count of our population.”
New York filed its lawsuit over the question with a coalition of other states almost immediately after the addition of the question was announced by the U.S. Department of Commerce. They had alleged the question was motivated by racial animus and a long-term strategy by the Trump administration to give Republicans more power in Congress.
That lawsuit was combined with another against the citizenship question from the New York Immigration Coalition last year for trial, which was held in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York.
They've argued that asking about citizenship on the census would lower turnout for the survey in areas with high immigrant populations, like New York. That could lead to a population undercount, they claimed, which could have resulted in fewer seats in Congress for those states. It could have also meant less federal funding in areas like education and health care.
The New York Immigration Coalition was represented by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union, both of which have used information obtained through discovery to push the case forward.
They claimed that U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross had already decided when he took office in 2017 that he wanted to ask about citizenship on the census, and that he didn't go through the proper channels to justify the addition. They, along with New York, sued based on several claims, but chief among them was the federal Administrative Procedure Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in striking down the question last month, criticized the administration's methods of adding the question to the survey.
“Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote. “What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
Ross, in a statement released Tuesday evening, said he disagreed with the high court's decision, but that the clock had run out on other options before the census had to be printed.
“I respect the Supreme Court but strongly disagree with its ruling regarding my decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 Census,” Ross said. “The Census Bureau has started the process of printing the decennial questionnaires without the question. My focus and that of the bureau and the entire department is to conduct a complete and accurate census.”
Ross and the U.S. Department of Justice have said they wanted to include a question about citizenship on the census to better help the federal government enforce the Voting Rights Act.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York had originally struck down the citizenship question in a decision handed down earlier this year.
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 AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readTrump, ABC News Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit Includes $1M in Attorney Fees For President-Elect
Can Law Firms Avoid Landing on 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Remembering Am Law 100 Firm Founder and 'Force of Nature' Stephen Cozen
- 2Attorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
- 3Suspended NY Judge Who Threatened to Shoot Black Party Crashers Says She Won't Fight Removal
- 4Kelly Hart Secures $27M Trade Secrets Misappropriation Final Judgment in Fort Worth Trial
- 5How Legal Research And Analytics Changed in 2024
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