Another 5-4 decision, right down party lines. This one is a little tricky. Basically, what SCOTUS is saying is that there is a legit reason for including the citizenship question on the census. However, the Agency needs to demonstrate it was acting under that legit purposes. So, ultimately, it was kicked back to the Agency to explain its actions. Of course, we all know what will happen here - the Dept of Commerce is simply going to give the reason laid out by the Court.
Holding: The Secretary did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, but the District Court was warranted in remanding the case back to the agency where the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision.
Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2019. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined; and with respect to Part V, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joined. Justices Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
Media reporting seems a little different, so maybe it comes down to timing. Can the Commerce Dept provide a better explanation for the need for the question in time for the forms to be printed?
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
Commerce claimed in court that they needed the answer by June 30th. Also, how exactly will commerce now come up with a new reason for adding the question? I mean now saying, “Ohh, we aren’t doing it for the VRA, we are actually doing it for X,” doesn’t really help, since that doesn’t explain why Ross wanted to add the question in the first place. Coming to the court now and saying, “We have a new pretextual reason to add the question.” That just puts them at the same place they are now.
Unless, commerce comes back with the real reason Ross added it in the first place, but I don’t think commerce wants to do that.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
I usually take what you write at face value, but this time I’m confused.
The majority was Roberts and the 4 liberal judges, so not down party lines.
I don’t see how you can say they “won” when they were told that their explanation doesn’t hold up. Considering that has pretty much been their story from the beginning it is unlikely that anyone would take a story change at this point for anything more than making up the facts to support the conclusion.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
I usually take what you write at face value, but this time I’m confused.
The majority was Roberts and the 4 liberal judges, so not down party lines.
I don’t see how you can say they “won” when they were told that their explanation doesn’t hold up. Considering that has pretty much been their story from the beginning it is unlikely that anyone would take a story change at this point for anything more than making up the facts to support the conclusion.
Only Part V was Roberts and the liberal justices. Parts I and II were unanimous. Parts III and IV were Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
Commerce claimed in court that they needed the answer by June 30th. Also, how exactly will commerce now come up with a new reason for adding the question? I mean now saying, “Ohh, we aren’t doing it for the VRA, we are actually doing it for X,” doesn’t really help, since that doesn’t explain why Ross wanted to add the question in the first place. Coming to the court now and saying, “We have a new pretextual reason to add the question.” That just puts them at the same place they are now.
Unless, commerce comes back with the real reason Ross added it in the first place, but I don’t think commerce wants to do that.
You might be right. It will certainly be a tap dance if Commerce is able to get this done.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m reconsidering your question, based on some more reading I am doing. I’m not entirely sure Commerce will be able to “revise” its stated reason for including the question and get it on the census.
They “won” in the sense that they are allowed to add the question. Just not because of the reasons provided by them (because they were inconsistent).
So they essentially have to take another bite of the apple to provide consistent reasons as to why they made the decisions. This is somewhat similar to the Muslim ban case. Initially held to be unconstitutional, but then the WH was given another try.
However, here things are somewhat different, 1) dont have the weight of the presidency, 2) are not able to change the text of the question (previously the text of the ban could be changed), 3) have evidence going against they previously claimed (I am not sure why they get around this), 4) self imposed timing issues (they said questions would be finalized by end of the month), 5) further challenges that could render this question moot at this point for the 2020 census.
What I imagine the commerce department will do is add the question in, and sort things out later.
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
So will there be a citizenship question in the 2020 census?
I’m guessing the answer is yes, but, that is now up to the Department of Commerce. I see no reason why the Department would change course now that it (basically) “won” the court case.
Commerce claimed in court that they needed the answer by June 30th. Also, how exactly will commerce now come up with a new reason for adding the question? I mean now saying, “Ohh, we aren’t doing it for the VRA, we are actually doing it for X,” doesn’t really help, since that doesn’t explain why Ross wanted to add the question in the first place. Coming to the court now and saying, “We have a new pretextual reason to add the question.” That just puts them at the same place they are now.
Unless, commerce comes back with the real reason Ross added it in the first place, but I don’t think commerce wants to do that.
You might be right. It will certainly be a tap dance if Commerce is able to get this done.
Commerce will probably try, but since the original case, only more evidence of Commerce lying about their reasons have come forward and also further data from the commerce department itself that it will lead to a less accurate count that required by constitution. So it will be even harder to take another bite.
Of course maybe they just say, “we are going to do this thing that makes the census less accurate in order to help Republicans.” And maybe the Supreme Court will think that is fine.
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
They also now have the issue of the dead guy’s hard drives where he laid out the real reason for the question. Those weren’t in evidence before.
And the SCOTUS laid out that you can’t just make shit up, so a post hoc weaselly reason won’t fly either.
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
Seems like you jumped the gun. Don’t you have any billable work to do?
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
Trump’s twitter response:
Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the…United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
Trump’s twitter response:
Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census, in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the Census, no matter how long, until the…United States Supreme Court is given additional information from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as a great Country, we are not able the ask whether or not someone is a Citizen. Only in America!
I am pretty serious that I think Republicans believe the that constitution is made up only of the second half of the 2nd amendment.
Can you imagine if a democrat wins in 2020, they refuse to tabulate the census and instead hold their own without the question?
The census questions should have been presented 2 years before the census (so cant add in a different question). So i the time for creating a different question with the same results has already passed. The reasons for holding this specific question have been found to be flawed.
As discussed in other threads there are numerous, legitimate arguments as to why the citizenship question should be on the census (as it had been in previous censuses?).
I am not sure if this commerce department can do that given the time constraints on creating these reasons in view of what evidence was already presented (on top of what was not).
The more I am reading, the more I am starting to agree with your conclusion. Commerce claimed it needed an answer by June 30, but, that was for full vindication. Commerce did not get that and I am not sure it can “revise” its rationale in time to get this on the census. I’m thinking your line of thinking is right.
Yes. They need to start printing Monday. There might be a way for Commerce to revise the question and rationale and re-present it to the court, AND get a positive ruling in the next 26 hours, but that’s highly unlikely.
That being said, an expert witness said they can delay the printing until October 31. Which gives the federal government 2 months to print 300,000,000+ forms and get them out to locations - Alaska starts the census January.
Its also crazy that Trump completely mischaracterizes the opinion. The opinion says its a valid questions to ask. But you cant be asking for it for the wrong reasons (just like the muslim ban).
HE IS ALSO ASKING TO BREAK THE RULES IN THE CONSTITUTION. (delaying the census).
The United States Census is a decennial census mandated by Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers … . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years."
