Justices to Consider Whether Census Citizenship Question Is Unconstitutional
The Supreme Court on Friday expanded the scope of oral arguments slated for April 23 on whether to reinstate a controversial question about citizenship proposed for the 2020 census to consider if the inquiry would violate the Constitution.
Lower courts in New York and California have already issued rulings on whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question to the upcoming census is arbitrary and capricious under federal law.
A federal judge in New York ruled that it was, prompting the Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Since then, a judge in California has ruled that adding the question to the census isn’t just wrongheaded, but also unconstitutional.
The justices originally granted review of the New York case to decide whether that decision violated federal laws governing administrative agencies, but on Friday afternoon they announced that in light of the California ruling, they will also consider whether the inclusion of the question violates the Constitution’s enumeration clause.
Found in Article I, 1, § 2, cl. 3 of the Constitution, the Enumeration clause states that representatives shall be apportioned “among the several States … according to their respective numbers” and that an “actual Enumeration” of the U.S. population be undertaken every 10 years.”
The request for the justices to add the constitutional question to their deliberations came from U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco. In a letter to court dated March 11, Francisco notified the justices of the California ruling and of the administration’s intent to appeal it as soon as the judgment is formally entered.
However, Francisco said, “in light of the June 2019 deadline to finalize the decennial census questionnaire, we respectfully suggest that the most orderly path forward would be for this Court to hold the forthcoming California petition and address the Enumeration Clause claim in its disposition of this case.”
Among other things, he said, dealing with the Enumeration Clause claim in the California case now would enable the court to avoid having to take it up in “a highly expedited or emergency posture.”
The letter went on to suggest that only by dealing with both issues can the justices issue a final, definitive ruling on the matter. To fail to do so, even if the Supreme Court ruled that the citizenship question does not violate federal administrative laws, would still allow lower courts to cite the enumeration clause as reason to block the government from including it.
Because they expanded issues they will consider during oral arguments, the Justices have given the parties until April 1 to file briefs on the enumeration clause issue.
In The News
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let... Read More
JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and let states decide whether to regulate abortion before a fetus can survive outside the womb, the office of Mississippi's Republican attorney general argued in papers filed Thursday... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of... Read More
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for "emotional distress." A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a California law that required nonprofits to disclose lists of their biggest donors, holding the requirement burdened donors’ First Amendment rights and was not narrowly tailored to an important government interest. In a 6-3 ruling authored by... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged... Read More
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday to uphold two provisions of Arizona’s election law that critics argued unfairly impinged on the rights of Black, Hispanic and Native Americans voters. By a 6-3 margin, the justices held that a 2016 law that limits who can return... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to... Read More
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday a company building a natural gas pipeline in New Jersey can continue to rely on eminent domain to claim state land in its path. The 5-4 ruling by the court included both liberal and conservative members of the court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — A closely watched voting rights dispute from Arizona is among five cases standing between the Supreme Court and its summer break. But even before the justices wrap up their work, likely later this week, they could say whether they'll add more high-profile issues... Read More