U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump's census citizenship question, for now

[GMDino]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-census/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-trumps-census-citizenship-question-for-now-idUSKCN1TS1BL

Quote:The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.



The justices - in a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in the majority - upheld part of a federal judge’s ruling barring the question in a victory for a group of states including New York and immigrant rights organizations that had challenged the plan.



Opponents of the question have called it a Republican ploy to scare immigrants into not taking part in the population count.


The court ruled against the challengers on other claims, with the nine justices splitting in different ways.


Roberts, writing for the court’s majority, said that under a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal government is required to give a reasoned explanation for its actions.


“Accepting contrived reasons would defeat the purpose of the enterprise,” Roberts wrote.


Roberts said that the explanation provided by the government was “more of a distraction.”


The ruling did not address litigation that is ongoing in lower courts over additional evidence challengers say show an illegal motive for adding the question, which the high court could yet weigh in on.

The Republican president’s administration had appealed to the Supreme Court after lower courts blocked the inclusion of the census question.


Opponents have said the question would instill fear in immigrant households that the information would be shared with law enforcement, deterring them from taking part.


The census, required by the U.S. Constitution, is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. The intent of the citizenship question, opponents said, is to manufacture a deliberate undercount of areas with high immigrant and Latino populations, costing Democratic-leaning regions seats in the House, benefiting Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.


The administration argued that adding a question requiring people taking part in the census to declare whether they are a citizen was needed to better enforce a voting rights law, a rationale that opponents called a pretext for a political motive.


SETBACK FOR TRUMP


The ruling marked the first major setback for Trump in a ruling at the Supreme Court.


The Supreme Court, which includes two justices appointed by Trump, had handed Trump some major victories since he took office in 2017, in particular a June 2018 ruling upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. The court in January also let Trump’s policy barring many transgender people from the U.S. military go into effect.


Manhattan-based U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman ruled on Jan. 15 that the Commerce Department’s decision to add the question violated a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. Federal judges in Maryland and California also have issued rulings to block the question’s inclusion, saying it would violate the Constitution’s mandate to enumerate the population every 10 years.

Furman said the evidence showed that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross concealed his true motives for adding the question and that he and his aides had convinced the Justice Department to request a citizenship question.


Businesses also rely on census data to make critical strategic decisions, including where to invest capital. Citizenship has not been asked of all households since the 1950 census, featuring since then only on questionnaires sent to a smaller subset of the population.


The Census Bureau’s own experts estimated that households corresponding to 6.5 million people would not respond to the census if the citizenship question were asked.


While only U.S. citizens can vote, non-citizens comprise an estimated 7 percent of the population.


Evidence surfaced in May that the challengers said showed that the administration’s plan to add a citizenship question was intended to discriminate against racial minorities.


Documents created by Republican strategist Thomas Hofeller, who died last year, showed that he was instrumental behind the scenes in instigating the addition of the citizenship question. He was an expert in drawing electoral district boundaries that maximize Republican chances of winning congressional elections.


Hofeller concluded in a 2015 study that asking census respondents whether they are American citizens “would clearly be a disadvantage to the Democrats” and “advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” in redrawing electoral districts based on census data.


Hofeller suggested the voting rights rationale in the newly disclosed documents.


The Trump administration called the newly surfaced evidence “conspiracy theory.”

Most people living in the United States will be asked to fill out the census, whether online or on paper, by March 2020.
For a graphic on major Supreme Court rulings, click tmsnrt.rs/2V2T0Uf

[url=https://tmsnrt.rs/2V2T0Uf][/url]
Of course I agree with this...but more because I don't trust the reasoning the Trump Admin tried to say they had nor what would be done with the answers on the census than because of the question itself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Let's put it this way:

It's not a coincidence that this vote went along party lines.

[SunsetBengal]

Quote:The census, required by the U.S. Constitution, is used to allot seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and distribute some $800 billion in federal funds. The intent of the citizenship question, opponents said, is to manufacture a deliberate undercount of areas with high immigrant and Latino populations, costing Democratic-leaning regions seats in the House, benefiting Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.

Always wanting to make it a racial issue..

[CJD]

(06-27-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's put it this way:

It's not a coincidence that this vote went along party lines.

What party line did it go along?

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2019, 12:27 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Always wanting to make it a racial issue..

Well, to be fair, that is exactly what the architect of the question intended it for when he wrote up the idea in 2015. So, yeah. The Republicans always do seem to want to make it a racial issue.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2019, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let's put it this way:

It's not a coincidence that this vote went along party lines.

You mean one side trying to protect democracy and the other not?

[SunsetBengal]

(06-27-2019, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, to be fair, that is exactly what the architect of the question intended it for when he wrote up the idea in 2015. So, yeah. The Republicans always do seem to want to make it a racial issue.

A racial issue, or just wanting to get a more accurate number of American and non-American bodies in the US, and how they are distributed?  Honestly, it seems like a fair enough question to ask on a census, it's not like they're asking for your name, address, and SSN.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2019, 12:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A racial issue, or just wanting to get a more accurate number of American and non-American bodies in the US, and how they are distributed?  Honestly, it seems like a fair enough question to ask on a census, it's not like they're asking for your name, address, and SSN.

A racial issue. That is the reason for adding it. The Republican strategist that came up with the idea, whose memo was copied almost verbatim by the Trump administration when adding the question, came up with the idea to gerrymander along racial lines in favor of Republicans. This was submitted as evidence in court for this case.

And adding a citizenship question will ensure a less accurate count on the census overall.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2019, 12:29 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: What party line did it go along?

What party line did it go along the time you made the exact same comment?

(06-27-2019, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean one side trying to protect democracy and the other not?

I actually see the point they're making though.  I may not necessarily agree with all of it, but I can understand the logic. 

[GMDino]

(06-27-2019, 01:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: A racial issue. That is the reason for adding it. The Republican strategist that came up with the idea, whose memo was copied almost verbatim by the Trump administration when adding the question, came up with the idea to gerrymander along racial lines in favor of Republicans. This was submitted as evidence in court for this case.

And adding a citizenship question will ensure a less accurate count on the census overall.

And, if I have this right, the reasoning was what this ruling was based on and not the question itself.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2019, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually see the point they're making though.  I may not necessarily agree with all of it, but I can understand the logic. 

I'm in the same position. I am actually against both rulings we have threads about from today. This one because even though I think the citizenship question is based on racist motives to gerrymander more effectively for Republicans, I think the administration has the ability to add the question and it is up to Congress to provide the oversight on that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2019, 01:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm in the same position. I am actually against both rulings we have threads about from today. This one because even though I think the citizenship question is based on racist motives to gerrymander more effectively for Republicans, I think the administration has the ability to add the question and it is up to Congress to provide the oversight on that.

You and I are of similar minds on this issue, with slight differences.  I don't see either of these rulings as hyper partisan though.

[CJD]

(06-27-2019, 01:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What party line did it go along the time you made the exact same comment?


I actually see the point they're making though.  I may not necessarily agree with all of it, but I can understand the logic. 

The party line of judges appointed by Republicans vs judges appointed by Democrats.

So, what party line did this vote, in which a conservative judge joined the 4 liberal judges against 4 conservative judges, go along?

[BmorePat87]

The administration failed to prove that the intent of this question was not intended to scare latinos away from participating in the census, ensuring areas that lean Democrat would be under represented.

When the Trump administration is outsourcing so much to GOP operatives and think tanks, the intent of those groups is going to come into play.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I think the question has every right to be on there, but I don't want it used for the purposes that they are arguing about. But anyways, there's nothing stopping the Dems from using the same data to do the same thing.

In all honesty, the voting district lines should be done strictly by a non partisan group, but unfortunately it would only be a matter of time before that would get corrupted as well.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2019, 02:14 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The party line of judges appointed by Republicans vs judges appointed by Democrats.

So, what party line did this vote, in which a conservative judge joined the 4 liberal judges against 4 conservative judges, go along?

Oh, so you're operating on the principle that a GOP appointed justice will always rule with the others and vice versa.  Rather cynical.

[CJD]

(06-27-2019, 02:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, so you're operating on the principle that a GOP appointed justice will always rule with the others and vice versa.  Rather cynical.

Is it cynical? Or is it just realistic?

There were people who voted for Trump solely because of the empty Supreme Court seat and their desire to overturn Roe v Wade.

Were they cynical as well?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2019, 03:07 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Is it cynical? Or is it just realistic?

There were people who voted for Trump solely because of the empty Supreme Court seat and their desire to overturn Roe v Wade.

Were they cynical as well?

Not a fact I was unaware of.  However, Justices tend to have a mind of their own once appointed and are still bench officers who decide cases based on the Constitution, the law and legal precedent.  To dismiss any ruling simply based on the justices for or against it is actually a more partisan exercise then you accused the justices of engaging in.

[GMDino]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/27/supreme-court-citizenship-question-trump-wants-delay-census/1581702001/

Quote:Trump says he asked lawyers if census could be delayed after Supreme Court decision on citizenship question




WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump said on Thursday afternoon that he would attempt to delay the 2020 census following a Supreme Court decision that would send his administration's request to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census back to a lower court, giving opponents another chance to block it. 


"Seems totally ridiculous that our government, and indeed Country, cannot ask a basic question of Citizenship in a very expensive, detailed and important Census," Trump said in a tweet. "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," Trump tweeted. 


The 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the administration's rationale for adding the question, calling the reason "contrived." 


The administration had cited the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as the reason for adding the citizenship question to the census, arguing that they needed to gauge an accurate count of citizen voting-age populations in every congressional district. Immigrant advocacy organizations countered by saying that the addition of the question might deter noncitizens from answering the census, potentially creating an "undercount."


"The intimidation of noncitizens against participating in the census will undoubtedly cause an undercount of minority demographics, ultimately defunding our communities and reinforcing political underrepresentation," explained Christine Chen, the executive director of APIAVote, an Asian American civic engagement nonprofit. 

Quote:
[/url]Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




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.....

[url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=1144298731887628288]27.6K
1:37 PM - Jun 27, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

The Commerce Department announced the addition of the citizenship question in March 2018 for everyone in the 2020 census. The question would ask if a census respondent were a citizen of the United States. The case was argued at the Supreme Court in late April.

Civil rights groups and Democratic leaders reacted positively to the decision.


House Democratic Whip James Clyburn called the decision "a major victory for democracy" and urged full participation in the census. 


Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer commented on the "abhorrent" motivation for adding the question.


"When even this conservative court determines that the Trump administration’s argument is odious and dishonest, you know the administration’s motivation behind adding the citizenship question in the first place was an abhorrent one," said Schumer.   


New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, said that “Every single person in this country deserves to be counted, plain and simple. We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision today."



Other groups noted the possibility of future litigation but mostly declared victory. 

"For all intents and purposes, this is over," said Dale Ho, the director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project who argued the case before the court. 
He said "it would be the height of hypocrisy" for the administration to try and offer a new justification for the inclusion of the citizenship question after previously arguing that they had to start printing the forms on Monday.


He said he "wouldn't put anything past them," but if the administration tried to add it again, "we'd be right back in court" and "I like our odds." 


Not all were pleased with the decision, however. 


Matt Schlapp, the chair of the American Conservative Union and a Trump ally, called for "impeaching the Chief Justice" because of the way the case was decided, adding that "If the census is not about determining the number people legally in the country to determine congressional populations then the most basic idea of a Republic has been destroyed." 


Kelly Laco, a Department of Justice spokesperson told USA TODAY in a statement, "We are disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision today. The Department of Justice will continue to defend this Administration's lawful exercises of executive power."


A question on citizenship last appeared in 1950 on all census forms for everyone. Through the 2000 census, the question at times had been asked on the census "long form," which goes to only 1 in 6 households. The question was not asked in the 2010 census at all.

Those opposed to the citizenship question fear it could result in an undercount of some minorities and Hispanics. If they are undercounted, the number of congressional seats and the distribution of federal funds to those areas could be reduced.

[CJD]

(06-27-2019, 03:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a fact I was unaware of.  However, Justices tend to have a mind of their own once appointed and are still bench officers who decide cases based on the Constitution, the law and legal precedent.  To dismiss any ruling simply based on the justices for or against it is actually a more partisan exercise then you accused the justices of engaging in.

They may assume the identity of non-partisanship, but they still have their own thoughts and beliefs and, sometimes, those thoughts and opinions, as well as their qualifications as a judge, are significant factors in why they were nominated.

In other words, it is my belief that a judge appointed by a pro-life president is more likely to be pro-life than a judge appointed by a pro-choice president. Just like a judge appointed by a pro-LGBT rights president is more likely to be pro-LGBT rights than a judge appointed by an anti-LGBT rights president.

I don't think recognizing the inherent biases of the human condition is any more partisan than those who are voting along their own partisan lines, whether they like to believe they are being objective or not.