{"id":12219,"date":"2019-02-06T17:26:29","date_gmt":"2019-02-06T22:26:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=12219"},"modified":"2019-05-20T20:51:01","modified_gmt":"2019-05-21T01:51:01","slug":"district-court-rules-no-citizenship-question-on-2020-census","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2019\/02\/06\/district-court-rules-no-citizenship-question-on-2020-census\/","title":{"rendered":"District Court Rules No Citizenship Question on 2020 Census"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Photo courtesy of Pixabay.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By: David Zvirman, Staff Writer<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Over the past few months, the Department of Commerce\u2019s (DOC) decision to add a citizenship question to the upcoming 2020 census sparked a lot of debate.[1]<\/sup><\/a> This debate culminated on January 15, 2019, when New York District Judge Jesse Furman struck down the DOC\u2019s attempt to add such a question.[2]<\/sup><\/a> While this decision is only the first step in a legal battle that will likely end up before the Supreme Court,[3]<\/sup><\/a> it is important to look at what the decision actually held. This article will examine and summarize the findings of facts and conclusions of law in the opinion,[4]<\/sup><\/a> to see what it truly provides.<\/p>\n

The Court initially found that an assertion by Secretary of Commerce William L. Ross Jr. that the question itself was not even considered until a December 2017 request came from the Department of Justice, DOJ, via letter, was inaccurate, if not an outright lie.[5]<\/sup><\/a> In coming to this conclusion the Court relied on emails from May 2017 where Ross requested status updates on his \u201cmonths old request\u201d for a citizenship question;[6]<\/sup><\/a> August 2017 emails to Ross\u2019s Deputy Chief of Staff, showing that research was being done to find a legal justification for the addition of the question;[7]<\/sup><\/a> and evidence that Ross personally went to then Attorney General Sessions to request that he have the DOJ request the question be added.[8]<\/sup><\/a> All of this led to the Court to conclude that Ross\u2019s claim that the question was needed by the DOJ to enforce the Voting Rights Act was untrue.[9]<\/sup><\/a> From the record it appeared that Ross requested the question, had his staff research a justification, then once his staff picked the best justification, try to get the DOJ to play along.[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Court then went into its findings regarding the various effects the proposed question may have.[11]<\/sup><\/a> The Court found that the addition of the question in the 2020 census would cause an estimated net decline in self-responses among noncitizen households of at least 5.8%, and that the actual decline would likely be higher.[12]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, the Court found that the Census Bureau\u2019s process of Non-Response Follow-Up would not cure the differential drop in self-responses and would only increase the degradation of the census results.[13]<\/sup><\/a> In addition, the Court also found that a citizenship question would or would likely \u201ccause several jurisdictions to lose seats in the next congressional apportionment and that it [would] cause another set of jurisdictions to lose political representation in the next round of intrastate redistricting.\u201d[14]<\/sup><\/a> This overall undercount of people, the Court found, would also lead to states losing access to federal funds that are allocated based on census data.[15]<\/sup><\/a> Finally, the Court held that a citizenship question would \u201charm the quality of the resulting census data regardless of whether it also leads to a net differential undercount of people who live in noncitizen and Hispanic households.\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The Court then went on to discuss the various claims the plaintiffs[17]<\/sup><\/a> made, including violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, APA, and violations of Due Process.[18]<\/sup><\/a> Regarding Ross\u2019s decision to include the question, the Court found that he acted arbitrarily and capriciously, in violation of the APA.[19]<\/sup><\/a> It found that Ross\u2019s claims that the question would not decrease response rates was \u201csimply untrue,\u201d and ran counter to the Census Bureau\u2019s own data on the issue.[20]<\/sup><\/a> Further, it found Ross\u2019 justification for the question[21]<\/sup><\/a> was purely pretextual and was completely contradicted by the evidence on record.[22]<\/sup><\/a> The Court found, however, the evidence did not support the plaintiffs\u2019 claim that Ross\u2019s actions violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment\u2019s Due Process Clause.[23]<\/sup><\/a> It found the plaintiffs failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Ross had a discriminatory motivation in reinstating the citizenship question in the next census.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, the Court concluded its opinion with a discussion of the various remedies sought by the plaintiffs.[25]<\/sup><\/a> In its discussion the Court held that an injunction barring the DOC from including a citizenship question in the next census was appropriate.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

In conclusion, this is only a brief summary of the findings of Judge Furman regarding the suit over the inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 census. For a fuller understanding of the case itself and the conclusions made by the court please read the full court document in the link provided in footnote 4 of this article.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a>Elizabeth Hartfield and George Wallace, Federal judge strikes down effort to add citizenship question to census<\/em>, CNN (1\/15\/19). Available at https:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2019\/01\/15\/politics\/census-citizenship-new-york\/index.html<\/a>; Corinne Ramey, Trial Begins Over Proposed Census Citizenship Question<\/em>, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (11\/5\/18). Available at https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/trial-begins-over-proposed-census-citizenship-question-1541452040<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a>Hartfield,Federal judge strikes down effort to add citizenship question to census<\/em>; Quinn, Federal judge blocks Trump administration from adding citizenship question to 2020 census<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a>See<\/em>Hartfield, Federal judge strikes down effort to add citizenship question to census<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a>To see the full 277-page court document go to\u00a0https:\/\/www.brennancenter.org\/sites\/default\/files\/legal-work\/2019-01-15-574-Findings%20Of%20Fact.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

[5]<\/a>State of New York, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al.<\/em>, 18-CV-2921, Pg. 94-102.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 95.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 96.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 99.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 99-102<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a>Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[11]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 109-48<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 119.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 126.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 137.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 142.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 146-47.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a>The Court recognized two sets of plaintiffs in this action: (1) \u201cGovernmental Plaintiffs\u201d consisting of a coalition of eighteen states and the District of Columbia, fifteen cities and counties, and the United States Conference of Mayors; (2) \u201cNGO Plaintiffs\u201d consisting of \u201ca coalition of non-governmental organizations.\u201d Id.<\/em>at 6.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 194-260.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 225-236.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 225-226.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a>That it was added at the request of the DOJ to help them better enforce the VRA.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a>State of New York<\/em>, at 245-243.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 253-63.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 262-63.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 263-75.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a>Id.<\/em>at 275.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By: David Zvirman, Staff Writer   Over the past few months, the Department of Commerce\u2019s (DOC) decision to add a citizenship question to the upcoming 2020 census sparked a lot of debate.[1] This debate culminated on January 15, 2019, when New York District Judge Jesse Furman struck down the DOC\u2019s [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[2687,2686,2688,2578,1886,2579,1942,2689,2690,392,1238,2691],"class_list":["post-12219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts","tag-2687","tag-census","tag-census-ballot","tag-census-bureau","tag-citizenship","tag-citizenship-question","tag-david-zvirman","tag-district-court","tag-doc","tag-immigration","tag-new-york","tag-secretary-of-commerce"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12219"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12419,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12219\/revisions\/12419"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}