The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.
The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
Those challenging the question said that asking about citizenship would cause non-citizens or immigrants to skip the question. The Trump administration has maintained in court filings that the data would not be accessible to other parts of the federal government, like immigration officials, but opponents argued that the implied perception surrounding asking about citizenship is enough to cause minority groups to not answer the question, or skip out on the census altogether.
The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.
Roberts wrote that "the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ's [the Department of Justice's] request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."
"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross
Wilbur Louis RossTrump officials ask Supreme Court to rule on discrimination claims in citizenship question decision Democrats: Ex-Commerce aide said Ross asked him to examine adding census citizenship question Apple in front lines of Trump trade war MORE] made and the rationale he provided."
Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended to include a citizenship question on the census "about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project."
And he noted that the Justice Department didn't indicate any interest in the citizenship data until contacted by Commerce officials, and that the evidence "suggests that DOJ's interest was directed more to helping the Commerce Department than to securing the data."
"Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision," Roberts wrote.
"In the Secretary’s telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency)," he continued. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decisionmaking process."
However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not "substantively invalid."
"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably," Roberts said. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."
Census data is used for items like drawing congressional districts and allocating federal funds to states, and opponents said an inaccurate population count would harm Americans and cause some to not receive needed funds.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader GinsburgSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE, Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Biden has a lot at stake in first debate MORE, Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia SotomayorSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE and Elena Kagan
Elena KaganSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE, the liberal members of the court, joined on the part of Roberts’s opinion opposing the question.
Justices Clarence Thomas
Clarence ThomasSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute EXCLUSIVE: Trump: I would fill Supreme Court vacancy before 2020 election MORE, Samuel Alito
Samuel AlitoSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Supreme Court rules against newspaper over information request, giving confidentiality win to businesses MORE, Neil Gorsuch
Neil GorsuchSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Washington owes Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch an apology MORE and Brett Kavanaugh
Brett Michael KavanaughSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Susan Collins: Trump's 'she's not my type' defense is 'extremely bizarre' MORE dissented.
In a dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that, "For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency's otherwise adequate rationale."
"This conclusion is extraordinary," he wrote. "The court engages in an unauthorized inquiry into evidence not properly before us to reach an unsupported conclusion."
Groups that had challenged the citizenship question's addition to the census in court quickly celebrated the ruling.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, whose state had led the lawsuit presented before the Supreme Court, said that because of Thursday's ruling "the census will remain a tool for delivering on our government’s promise of fairness and equity, and states, like New York, will not be shortchanged out of critical resources or political representation."
"Our democracy withstood this challenge, but make no mistake, many threats continue to lie ahead from the Trump administration and we will not stop fighting. Now, more than ever, the marginalized, the disenfranchised, and everyday people need us to stand firm in our fight for justice. After all, everyone counts, and therefore, everyone must be counted."
The decision was also cheered by multiple Democratic 2020 White House candidates:
Trump lied about his motivations, and five justices called him on it. His proposal to add a citizenship question to the census was nothing but a racist attempt to disenfranchise communities of color. https://t.co/OPZfQbpgNK
— Bernie SandersBernie Sanders2020 Democrats spar over socialism ahead of first debate 'Teflon Don' avoids the scorn of the 'family values' GOP — again Don't expect Trump-sized ratings for Democratic debates MORE (@BernieSanders) June 27, 2019
YES — this is a victory for our democracy. But the fight is not over, so let's keep working to make sure everyone is counted. https://t.co/vqjDFjgiVg
— Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharPelosi: Congress will receive election security briefing in July 2020 Dems say they will visit Homestead facility holding migrant children The Hill's 12:30 Report: Anticipation high ahead of first debate MORE (@amyklobuchar) June 27, 2019
The ruling is handed down as the Commerce Department says it has a deadline of June 30 — Sunday — to start printing census materials.
And it comes as another lawsuit challenging the question plays out in federal court in Maryland.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this week that a district judge in Maryland could review whether there was a discriminatory intent behind the question's addition, in light of new evidence filed in the lawsuit. That opens the door for the judge to potentially block the question on those grounds, as it's a different legal question than the one presented to the Supreme Court.
That new evidence pertains to late Republican redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller, as documents were recently uncovered from Hofeller's hard drives as part of a separate lawsuit in North Carolina that indicate he played a previously undisclosed role in the orchestration of the citizenship question.
The documents indicate that Hofeller conducted an unpublished study in 2015 that found asking about citizenship would help Republicans in redistricting, while hurting Hispanic communities and Democrats.
It also suggests that Hofeller may have helped in the drafting of a memo used by the Trump administration to argue for the citizenship question. And emails also show that a Census Bureau staffer was in touch with Hofeller about the citizenship question back in 2015.
Documents relating to Hofeller's role have been filed in a pair of separate lawsuits challenging the citizenship question, in federal court in New York and Maryland. The New York lawsuit was the case under consideration by the Supreme Court.
The ACLU has notified the Supreme Court of the evidence. And it requested that the justices send the case back down to a lower court, to allow new evidence to be officially added to the lawsuit — a motion the court is scheduled to discuss during a private conference Thursday.
But the Trump administration asked the justices to rule on whether the addition of the question violates equal protection claims, in an effort to pre-empt any action out of a lower court.
Groups challenging the citizenship question in federal court in Maryland also requested late Wednesday that District Judge George Hazel issue a preliminary injunction by Friday to block the question from appearing on the census.
Hazel, an Obama appointee, has asked the Trump administration to reply to that request by 8 p.m. Thursday.
— Updated at 12:25 p.m.
