This is what you get for not being forthright to begin with and contriving a pretext when the question should be perfectly permissible for any number of other reasons. The Administration tied itself into knots but the Court gave it a road map to fix it.
7
Shame on the Supreme Court for failing to take a stand on this issue. But, honestly, when the Supreme Court has just announced that gerrymandering is completely fine, does the census question really matter? When minority groups are already being systematically marginalized a correct count wont matter because the party in power can just do whatever they want when elections are rigged using carefully crafted maps. And yet another nail in the coffin of what once was a democracy.
14
This is probably the worst decision the Supreme Court has made in decades. If arbitrarily determined quality of explanation is used to determine validity of otherwise perfectly lawful actions, then we really have no law. This is like looking for motive without a crime. It is unclear what role the Court has in sanctioning or prohibiting the execution of a constitutional obligation of the Executive. The primary question here is one of jurisdiction. And the Constitution does not allow the judicial branch to determine that it is whatever they want it to be. This is where Common Law actually controls.
3
Right there in the article (if you read it) they determined the reason did not satisfy requirements set in the Administrative Procedure Act, the LAW that the supreme court is basing its decision on. With disagreement between the legislative and executive and lower court rulings, it is exactly under the jurisdiction of the court!
5
@Andy
The Supreme Court settles issues of constitutional law, not issues of form.
1
The game Robert is playing is very transparent. He tosses Democrats an occasional bone while he’s putting poison in the food bowl.
38
My guess is Roberts would have preferred to allow the question on the census but, in light of the new evidence, he realized that would have been a bridge too far.
12
Why wouldn't you want to know how many 'citizens' you actually have living in your country? It would only make sense to ask what your citizenship is in a census to have accurate numbers of who is living in US soil. I don't understand why the American people oppose that. Yikes
6
@Cindy: As defined in the constitution, the census counts "persons" not "citizens". Ctizenship questions are useless clutter and sabotage the intent. Amendment 14, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons....
So ask your questions elsewhere.
8
Um.. can anyone tell me exactly how many citizens the United States of America has? Does anyone know the number? Does the government do?
4
In other words, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must come up with a better lie before they suppress representation by adding the citizenship question.
11
Only citizens are allowed to vote. Crosschecking election results against census data should highlight non-citizen voting, if the citizen question is included. To me this is much more important to the survival of our democracy than whether the Russians interfered in our election.
3
@California Bill
Isn't divulging census data to other parties (e.g., election officials) illegal?
3
@rella. No... Releasing identifying information is illegal.... But aggregated, non-identifying census data is publically available.
@rella Yes it is illegal according to Title 13 to use the census to enforce policy beyond apportionment or federal grants. However, the general tabulation is and should be used for targeting services to specific areas where they are necessary. Individual responses cannot be weaponzied and used against the respondee in any way.
2
Our Supreme Court in the majority is dishonest. They care about rich men’s money not the well being of the people. 4 out of 5 are rotten.
9
The Founding Fathers never envisioned that the majority would have to fight for their rights against a minority armed with a computer program and bad intentions. Our votes are marginalized and under attack, while the votes of 9 (mostly men) are determining our nations direction. We haven't even begun to see the impact of the recent Federal Judgeships that McConnell rammed through the Senate.
We need a new voter's rights act to protect the majority.
7
The headline is incorrect. The court just wanted more detailed reasoning why. This indicates that eventually the court will rule the question can be included. The question the court should have asked itself "is the question constitutional" and not be asking for motivation. Of course the big win today was for the Republicans.
4
@jonathan I agree. The supremes said the reason given to the lower court was bogus. The remedy for that is NOT to remand the case back to the lower court to give the Trump Administration a chance to come up with a new, presumably more acceptable, reason.
The lower courts finding was based on the evidence presented.
It is unacceptable to give Trump a second chance and strong suggestions as to how to win next time.
11
The courts have long ruled that the federal government has exclusive power over immigration. This, for example, is why a federal court struck down a proposition passed by 59% of California voters in 1994. Angry over the cost of supporting illegal immigrants, California voters passed Proposition 187 which would have ended non emergency medical care, education, and other services for them. A federal judge said Prop. 187 was unconstitutional because the federal government has “exclusive jurisdictioin over matters relating to immigration”.
California still does not realize that only the federal government has jurisdiction over immigration. It wants the Census to count its illegal residents without distinguishing them from citizens so that it will get more representation in Congress and so that it will get federal money to spend on its illegal residents. California refuses to notify our Immigration service about illegal immigrants who have been convicted of committing crimes unless the crimes are especially heinous. It plans to provide young adults who are here illegally with Medicaid, and hopes to cover older aliens in the future. Half of the funding for Medicaid comes from the federal government. It wants to use federal money to provide illegal migrants with benefits that should be reserved for citizens and possibly for legal residents.
California is trying to usurp the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration.
3
@ann, as a legal citizen in California I'm more concerned about my vote counting less than someone in Ohio in national elections simply because of where I live. If people are truly concerned about the rights of ALL legal citizens in our country, then there are many issues to address that have nothing to do with the census and everything to do with the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters through systematic means, beginning with gerrymandering and leading to the Electorate.
2
Good luck, Chief Justice Roberts, with your "legacy". The circle gets smaller and smaller. No longer all Ivy graduates but Kavanaug and Gorsuch graduated from the same, exclusive high school - Georgetown Prep.
We must have a Supreme Court that represents ALL Americans, not just the elites, if any vestige of democracy is to survive. Look back through ages, William O. Douglas and Thurgood Marshall were the last of the Supremes who did not graduate from the Ivies. Both fought for those less fortunate, saw life from the bottom up - not the top down.
May RBG live to triple digits and continue to thrive on the Supreme Court.
5
This case is just another example of perjury overlooked. Justice Roberts essentially confirmed this in the opinion. And what about the Hofeller files? No a single mention of those anywhere. Today's rulings are very disturbing despite the reprieve offered in this particular case.
4
Thomas strenuously argues that the evidence that Ross lied is not evidence, instead twisting an argumentative pretzel that, despite a preponderance of evidence, the court is bound to accept his rationalization. And of course, he would only attempt to weave this type of argument for a partisan decision he likes. Thomas is one of the more intellectually bankrupt members of the court.
Also, Congress can impeach Ross, given that he holds a Senate-confirmed position. His lies under oath are proven.
7
The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the allocation of Electoral College votes and House seats is based on the total number of people, which is what the constitution says:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed"
The only requirement is that a person is not a slave. A citizenship question was included on several earlier censuses but non-citizenship was not an issue back then. In fact non-citizens were a large part of the population at that time.
The only reason for the question now is to intimidate people who might fear being targeted by the government into avoiding filling out the questionnaire. This further biases representation, along with the Electoral College and the Senate, towards states with fewer of such (free) people. Slaves did in fact count as three fifths of a person, for the benefit of states with large populations of slaves. Maybe illegal immigrants should be thought of as slaves, since they're so heavily exploited. That would even things up a bit.
6
@PJ when it benefitted conservatives, they were all for it, not that they perceive that it doesn’t, they want to do away with it. Go figure.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.”
This sort of feels like deja vu for when the House Democrats were asked why they so desperately needed to subpoena Trump’s tax returns for anything other than strictly political purposes the best explanation they could come up with too was totally contrived . . . . . “Oh, we just need to test our power to audit to see if it works.”
What goes around comes around in Washington, in both directions, apparently.
It appears that conservative justices see no requirement for the executive branch to operate in a fair and reasonable way. Apparently the executive branch is free to operate in as partisan a manner as it pleases. Do the conservative justices think the only recourse is to vote the bums out?
1
To be clear, they really just said “come up with a less transparent pretense.” Roberts still wants Republicans to disenfranchise voters, he just doesn’t want it to be so obvious.
2
No doubt the GOP has a long-range agenda here. We've been told for decades that there were eleven million illegal aliens in the US, then magically the number jumped to twenty million. I've seen estimates that exceed thirty million. Isn't it about time to try and get an actual count? Democrats oppose a citizenship question for one reason, power. If it does dissuade some illegal immigrants from being counted, it might reduce the number of Representatives they receive for the House. The more representatives they can get in the House, the more power they have as well as more Federal funds. At real issue here is should Federal money & House representation be determined by how many Illegal immigrants you have in your state? Many Americans would say absolutely not. The GOP feels that illegal immigrants should not be counted when congressional representation is calculated. If this occurs then western blue states would get serious about immigration reform so the thinking goes. I think it's fair to ask why are we permitting non-citizens & illegal immigrants who don't vote to alter the makeup of Congress? Is this why Dems favor sanctuary cities? SCOTUS will probably approve the citizenship question because it’s within the president’s power regardless of how malign the intent.
4
None of this matters. Ross will include the question anyway. Who will stop him, the AG? American democracy is a joke.
2
The Supreme Court is corrupt as is this entire administration. Their fantasy is to be Gilead. It may be time to think about escaping to Canada while there is still time.
2
Here a question for the 2020 census I would like to see added: Do you or anyone in your household possess a firearm, and, if yes, how many?
8
Why do many people here argue the census should not ask for citizenship because our constitution says "persons" and not "citizens"?
Riddle me this then..
Article II Section 1, says "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years ..."
It says "He."
Do you therefore think our constitution says only men can be presidents?
3
@Bhaskar
The word "he", as used here, was understood to be gender-inclusive until fairly recently. For instance, there were probably legal documents that referred to the Secretary of Labor as "he" when Frances Perkins was the incumbent under FDR, and no one cared. Is there any evidence that people used the terms "citizen" and "person" interchangeably 230 years ago?
2
@Bhaskar person isn’t a synonym for citizen, “he“ has long been used as a neutral catch all pronoun.
1
A major victory for Democracy, and a slap in the face of white supremacist's. Shocking that the Supreme Court does the right thing for democracy once in awhile these day's. Not often with the ugliness of Thomas and Alito....Gorsuch, runner up standing in the way. They refuse to see the Constitution as a living document, but something written in stone.
1
Can someone explain why this case was accepted for review by SCOTUS in the first place? After, the lower courts were unanimous in finding multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. Most news coverage has emphasized Secretary Ross' bad-faith rationale, but there were numerous other problems with the manner in which the citizenship question was railroaded through the process. SCOTUS would have had to reverse each and every one of the lower courts' findings of APA violations in order to rule differently. They should have just let the lower courts' rulings stand.
20
This article misses the mark because it does not confirm that Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal block in making this decision. I assume this is the case but this is basic information that should be reported. It s clear that Chief Justice Roberts may be deferring to history to avoid being included with the likes of Roger Taney who history has not judged favorably. I just pray that the other senior justices such as Ginsberg can remain on the court past the current administration.
12
Trump’s next appointment to the Supreme Court will give him a 6-3 majority there.
When that happens, Trump's people throughout the country will begin advancing cases to the Court that will render the U.S. Constitution as we presently know it null and void and of no further use to the country.
26
@A. Stanton That is exactly why we have to hope that Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg can go the distance to outlast Trump. The wild card could be Clarence Thomas who is making noises about retiring. But his replacement would no doubt be another ultraconservative justice, which would not change the balance on the court. Our best hope is that the composition of the court remains unchanged until Trump is out of office.
6
Mr Roberts:
"If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.”
Mr Rogers:
"Can you say 'wicked low bar'? Sure you can!"
3
This is how redistricting is done
California’s proposition 11 was heavily back by the republicans and it backfired because we’re now neon blue
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_11,_Creation_of_the_California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission_(2008)
1
And so Trump wants to treat this like he does with threats and tariffs with our enemies and allies.
He wants to hold he Census hostage until he can get his way.
Which, once again, is bordering on a Constitutional violation.
But for Trump, yawn ....
7
Since when does someone caught lying not only get a pass on the lying but also gets the chance to try to make up another story?
19
We got yer back, but come up with a better lie.
10
Supreme Court is only delaying its ruling on the census question. It does not want to appear as prejudging the case.
Especially when there is a dispute involving the files found in the republican's house.
That dispute alleges a motive for gerrymandering, but it became moot when the SC ruled in favor of gerrymandering today.
So the SC will rule in favor of including the citizenship question in the census. But will it be soon enough for the upcoming census?
3
And now President Trump asks to delay the 2020 census. What next? Delay the 2020 election? maybe cancel both ?
17
So when is Secretary Ross going to be tried for perjury, or does he just get a second chance to weave another false justification for the citizenship question?
20
To fellow democrats in red states only, if the question gets asked, don’t fill out the form. Democrats in blue states must fill them out.
4
One must strive to speak to people in the language they understand best. In this case, one must answer lies with lies.
3
@Jon
So all the arguments about the importance of the census are going to be thrown overboard just so that the other guys don't get to "win"?
5
@AACNY you think this is about people winning?
Those of you who are for equaity in voting, take a deep but temporary breath----the Republican majority (used to be just the majority) on Scotus are merely saying, we will approve the citizenship question, but go back and give us another reason that hasn't been so publicly disproved and we will promptly approve the citizenship question--but hurry--time is of the essence to cement in a permanent Republican minority rule in the USA!
8
@Ironmike
Fact check: Chief Justice Roberts was joined in his opinion by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, who normally would not be considered part of a "Republican majority" of Supreme Court Justices.
I don’t care how well the right-wingers on the court write, their dishonesty embarrasses this country and its constitution. They threw out Congress’s extensive fact-finding so that they could gut the voting rights act, then they act all hit and bothered that the courts would require an actual reason for an administrative action, which is exactly what the administrative procedures act requires. Are they saying the courts should not be the arbiter of whether an agency complies with the law? Not only does the Court’s right wing embarrass us with its bogus reasoning, but it imperils our purported government of by and for the people and the people of this country. The wealthy through the gerrymandering decision now have feee rein to strengthen their power, prevent real opposition, and plunder the country for what it’s worth, leaving the rest of us literally choking on the fumes, poisoned by the water, and killed by climate change while they sip their champagne and prevent the government from mentioning “climate change” in official documents. The right -wingers might be book smart but they are pretty dumb when it comes to the true meaning of our Constitution.
11
A shift to a truly authoritative regime in the WH is in the making, no question.
8
There can now be no doubt that SCOTUS is to be used as a partisan tool of a corrupt, deceitful administration. Heaven help us.
14
This is a perfect example of the low level of literacy in the current administration. The argument from the Dept of Justice states "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."
Now, any idiot, except those who got through Wharton by the skin of their teeth, would understand that to "gauge the accurate count of citizens of voting-age." you need to encourage the participation of as many people as is possible.
If you add the citizenship question it will deter non citizens from responding to the census. If you leave it off, you will get a more accurate count and a more equitable division of goods and services provided by the federal government.
So, in their own words the Justice Department is arguing for a change in the form that will increase the level of inaccuracy.
6
The question is valid as some localities enacted sanctuary policies for people here illegally. This gives mostly Democrat strong holds unfair advantages over localities that do not encourage breaking the law with tax dollars and additional Congressional representation. Democrats claim to do this for humanitarian reasons which is questionable. More likely it is a ploy to gain political power by ignoring immigration federal laws. Benefiting from law breaking and encouraging more to break laws is absolutely wrong, unfair to localities that respect the law. Democrats must not be allowed increase political power using this ploy.
3
@Lane
Oh please, the constitution dictates counting PEOPLE not citizenship.
1
Of course the question should be on there. Why would anyone insist on *not* knowing about a resident's citizenship?
5
@AACNY
Because that is not the central purpose of the census, because experts inside and outside the Census Bureau are almost unanimous that it would not yield reliable information and would undermine the accuracy of census as a whole, and because there are better ways of getting reliable data on citizenship.
11
@rella
In the first instance, census data is used to apportion the House of Representatives; for that purpose, all "persons" need to be counted.
The federal government provides funding for numerous programs operated by state or local governments. Many of those programs are restricted to citizens, or are open only to legal permanent residents whether or not they are citizens. Knowledge of citizen count is likely to be useful in apportioning those funds, separate from the count of all persons required for allocating representatives among the states.
1
@Thomas D. Dial there are also legal funds that go to support non-citizens, including legal residents and immigrants. All persons need to be counted.
1
So now his majesty Trump wants to delay the census because the court didn't go in his direction, again trying to rewrite the Constitution.
This man is the most Anti-American that has ever lived.
7
I didn't have faith in this conservative court before. It made it worse by their decision on gerrymandering! No faith in SCOTUS, none what do ever!
3
I suspect the 'Republican' judges on the court had no choice but to acquiesce in the light of the Thomas Hofeller files. It would defy reality to claim ignorance when the intent of adding the question was right there in black and white. Score one for freedom. Alas, what with everything else the Repubs have managed to subvert, it will be difficult to deal with them.
4
@Chris
All indications were that the Supreme Court was going to support the citizenship question. It was pretty much a slam dunk before those files saw the light of day.
Pretty amazing to live in a country where we can only hope for justice from the most powerful court in the land under unusual circumstances of serendipity.
Eventually the shame of inconvenient evidence will wear off. Give it a few years.
2
The fact that, other than Roberts, the conservative bloc did not think the Trump administration’s reasoning was “contrived” is beyond scary. I mean really! Anybody with a thread of objectivity can see through this charade. This has to be one of the most political courts in our country’s history.
9
@nnn They were not nominated and approved for their objectivity, nor their clear thinking. They are dedicated ideologues - dedicated to the heritage foundation, not the Constitution.
As I have said before, Justice Thomas's legal acumen is lacking. He is trying to give this government benefit of doubt when you have clear cut evidence of bad-faith.
((Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.
“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”))
Hah. So, outright lying and dedicated bad-faith efforts... and no judiciary has the right to interfere.
I don't know if I want to hear anymore from this SC.
What a nightmare.
A Supreme Court you can't count on.
5
My ancestors helped "make america great" and after freedom didn't even get citizenship until the 16th amendment to guarantee slaves' constitutional rights. And another 100 years to ensure voting rights.
So if the question had been placed on the census, I'd proudly check " citizen" 'cause they earned it for me.
4
So how does this work? If your first explanation had to be a lie how do you come up with a second explanation that isn't a lie?
"Well, first I lied about why we adding the question because if I told the truth it wouldn't have passed muster. This time I'm telling a better lie. No. Really. Even though I never had a legitimate reason to add the question, this time my I have a legitimate lie."
And Justice Thomas, did you not see the evidence before your court? There is no conspiracy web. There are conspiracy facts. And, yes, opponents of executive actions should be able to show malignant intent to stop the executive.
Justice Alito
“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
WHAT? "or his real reasons" Do you actually believe Americans cannot, through the courts, question the corrupt intent of its government to stop malign and malicious acts? That a government lying to its people is beyond the ability of the people to address, short of what, elections? But you ensured that option today with the gerrymandering case, right?
3
Yet another opportunity for moral non-equivalence. Democratic gerrymandering in recent times puts power, influence and funding into the hands of American patriots who believe in caring for those who are less fortunate and judge our ethical compass on those efforts.
Republican gerrymandering in recent times pads the pockets of the rich, burdens philanthropy to care for the less fortunate and encourages discrimination for the disenfranchised. To me, that’s a poor moral compass sometimes disguised as “freedom” or “capitalism”. It is plainly mean-spirited and glorifies the wealthy and the selfish.
Which group would you believe are good stewards of this power?
2
So, therefore, the US cannot count how many legal citizens it has?
2
The republicans have won by defunding public education to the point that the people cannot reason logically. No one said you can’t count citizens. You just can’t lie about your reason for putting that question on the census, especially when the agency on charge recommended against because it would result in a highly inaccurate census. You want to count citizens-please do. But don’t destroy the census in the process. Have a proper census and, independently, count citizens. Have at it. Anyway, the Court doesn’t care about the voting rights act? Which they gutted in spite of Congress’s extensive fact-finding supporting renewal of that act, and the VRA had been enforced well during the time before the Court gutted it, without a citizenship question on the census.
@Moderate Republican
It has to, in the first place, comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. The lower courts were unanimous in finding multiple violations of the APA, most of which have not received much attention in most news coverage. The SCOTUS would have had to reverse each and every one of those findings in order to rule differently.
@Moderate Republican that’s not what would be counted anyway. You’d have people born here and naturalized, and resident aliens, temporary residents and undocumented. Even people here legally would get screwed by this. And the people who aren’t here legally aren’t just in California.
1
So according to Thomas it is okay for an adminstration to (1) violate the law and (2) lie to the courts and congress. How is this originalist thinking?
4
@Godzilla De Tukwila That Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court remains one of the great tragedies in recent American history. As for your comment, I would ask a slightly different question: How is this thinking?
Our wealthy sleeping at the helm, Secretary of Commerce Ross, is more adept at ordering house slippers with the Department of Commerce logo upon them, and meeting with the nefarious Kobach of voting fraud infamy, than lying to Congress, as far as the purpose for the citizenship question.
This is just another one of a thousand cuts to terminate our democracy, with the undeterred help of the Russians, who gave this administration life. Will it ever never end until they totally destroy what is left of our democracy?
It's 4am in Tokyo, and Trump is already tweeting. What energy! Way to prepare for your upcoming day, Mr. President!
Taken in the context of the gerrymandering case, which allows politicians to be politicians as long as they are honest about it, this decision seems to invite the administration to simply come clean about why they want the citizenship question. If they would simply say, "We want to add this question to the census to suppress the response of Democratic leaning groups so we can manipulate the 2021 redistricting process to ensure Republicans are over-represented in the House." that would be fine with Chief Justice Roberts. Doing so would expose Secretary Ross to charges of perjury before Congress but Our President could simply firing him because he lied to Congress ("How was I to know?") and have his new Acting Secretary provide said honest justification.
Help me out here. If I remember my con law class correctly, decisions are to be decided on the most narrow and fundamental points of law (very roughly speaking).
The Constitution says that within every 10 years there will be a headcount. It does exclude non-taxpaying Indians and 3/5 of non-free persons. (Clearly that's been corrected)
But at issue is the mandate to count people. Evidence is in through trials that the question encourages an undercount (I am pretty sure); evidence definitely indicates that statistical strategies best capture the transient populations (students at school, homeless, etc.)
Shouldn't the issue be how to maximize accuracy of the count? I'm confused why Roberts focused on the intent of the question rather than the measurable outcome.
2
@Betsy The Geroge W. Bush administration already enshrined in precedent that mere malfeasance is not sufficient to overturn policy. Now, it is the responsibility of the majority of Americans to prove that the malicious minority in power is intentionally doing their jobs poorly instead of just bad at their jobs. Thank Dick Cheney for this.
@Betsy
Your comments gets at the fact that the lower courts identified multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. For some reason just one of those violations, Secretary Ross' bad-faith rationale, has gotten almost all the attention. However, there were other violations, including the failure to subject the proposed citizenship question to the same statistical quality control checks that any other proposed question would have to pass before being included in the census.
It seems inconceivable that the Census Bureau will be able to come up with a better justification. The lower court judge who will hear the case is unlikely to be persuaded by a new justification on the theory that if that was truly the justification it should have been raised in the first instance. The new justification is likely to be at least as contrived as the first.
The lower court should decide against the Census Bureau as should the Appeals Court. But if Roberts can be persuaded that the new justification is credible even if tardy, he might find for the Census Bureau.
In the meantime, Trump wants to delay the census. Under 13 USC Sec. 141 that census is to be conducted as of April 1 in every year that ends in zero. However, laws seem not to constrain Trump, and he likely will try to delay the census until he wins or at least until a court tells him he cannot delay further.
The problem is that the Constitution does not provide a remedy for a lawless President other than impeachment, which is toothless unless Senators are prepared to serve as unbiased jurors in a trial of a President on a Bill of Impeachment.
@M.i. Estner
It would be more accurate to speaking of ruling against the Commerce Department, not the Census Bureau, its subsidiary. I don't believe there has ever been much support for adding the citizenship question within the Bureau. In fact, I believe the courts found Commerce's end run around the Bureau's quality control processes to be a separate violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
2
An interesting sidelight on this: The courts, up to and including a majority of the Supreme Court, have found that the Secretary of Commerce lied under oath -- but no one has any expectation that he will lose his cabinet position as a result. Another sad commentary on the sad state of the Republic.
5
If the citizenship question is on the Census forms, despite the ruling (as some have speculated), then the correct thing for every citizen is to fill out the census form and leave the response to this question blank. The legitimate purposes the census serves can be met just as well with one question not filled out.
Everyone who cares about the country should refuse to participate in such a blatant attempt to bias the results.
The Trump administration may attempt to toss all of the "incomplete" forms--but this would be challenged because of the obvious bias incurred in the constitutionally mandated results.
2
“To put the point bluntly,” he [Alito] wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
Since in hard right political thinking, the "unitary executive" is the POTUS, and since all of the people he appoints work at his pleasure, basically Alito is saying that “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to" have lies flowing out of the Executive Branch to justify whatever Trump wants to do.
In essence, Alito just signaled that he would vote to accept as valid any lie presented by Trump and his maladministration, on the basis of "I am not authorized to think about THAT."
Extreme right wing logic at work in 2019.
1
It seems like we would want to know how many citizens and how many non-citizens are living in the USA. It's a demographic question that has been on the census before. But I suppose that if your political power depended on importing voters you would be opposed to too much visibility.
3
@Porch
The question was removed between the 1950 and 1960 censuses by the (Republican) Eisenhower administration, largely because of the same concerns about statistical reliability and integrity that experts inside and outside the Census Bureau point out today. In those days people put country above party.
Question: why did Roberts side with the liberals? Answer: after learning about the politics which motivated the census question, he realized his legacy would never sustain allowing the citizenship question, jurisprudence notwithstanding. IF we hadn’t learned about the Republican motives, he would have voted to allow it, I think.
We have a summer home. More than once, I receive form at each. As luck would have it, often a long form one place and a short the other. Easy choice.....fill out short form and get on with it. No. Harassed for months. The 'but you'd be counting us twice' argument had no effect.
If you have ever filled out a long form.....they want to know about vehicles, education, bathrooms, income, and a a bunch of info that goes way beyond a head count.
I am no fan of collecting data on private persons, but given these are delivered to residences...not people, the citizenship question is more in line with the purpose of the census than ones educational attainments.
It is a sorry situation when we distrust our government to use it judiciously.
@Jane Bidwell I used to work in advertising. To that end, I still have some subscriptions to various trade publications.
Today, they were all in a lather about what would happen to their various marketing efforts if the census information was some unavailable to them , so they could fine tune their marketing efforts to sell you stuff. That's what the information in the long-form census is used for.
I can't see why the government needs any information beyond sex, age, number of inhabitants.
How is knowing exactly how many people live in this country but aren’t citizens more important than the accurate distribution of Electoral College votes, allotted congressional representatives, and allocation of billions in federal funds? There is no logic or honor or truth in the argument on the dissent side of the court. Clarence Thomas is a joke. Good for John Roberts doing the right thing on this decision.
1
Justice Clarence Thomas’s “the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.” implies he may not have been in the same hearing as the majority justices.
And Thomas’s “I do not deny that a judge predisposed to distrust the secretary or the administration could arrange those facts ….”
Seems all of that is the point of the evidence presented at the hearing.
And did he miss this as well? “Three federal trial judges have ruled that the evidence in the record demonstrated that Mr. Ross was not being truthful.”
So the Court is as political as the other branches. But here is a case where facts don’t matter for the republican (conservative) justices.
1
Roberts only delayed what will most likely be another win for the GOP and Trump once all the loop holes are enacted.
Sad day for America.
As Justice Thomas writes, the motivation for including the citizenship question was complex and deciding cases based on motivation is a new unfortunate doctrine that can be used to challenge all administrative decisions. Up till now the courts generally have deferred to Federal agencies. The Hofeller memo simply examines the potential effects for either political party from including the citizenship question. Assigning bad intent to it constitutes looking into the soul of those involved. The question was present in some form on the Census between 1790 and 2010. The opposition to the question, and invoking motivation and morality of intent, indicates that Democrats who like to feign respect for the Constitution while trampling all over it, oppose the question in pursuit of their goal of increasing their seat number, even if non-citizens constitute significant fractions of their congressional districts. As Justices Thomas and Alito wrote, the Court should decide based on constitutionality not on the examination of the soul for heresy, the favored activity of the progressive mind. So who are the real demons, and whose intent is virtuous, those who want to have congressional districts based on the votes or citizens, or the other guys?
2
@Daniel Judges are tasked with evaluating motivations, truthfulness, and intent all the time.
The Constitution states, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers ... Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."
If Ross et al. are not interested in doing their Constitutionally mandated job, they should be removed. Job = count whole number of persons (not citizens).
The Supreme Court agreed with the Federal District Court of New York that the “the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” This settles the most crucial question. The constitutionality of asking the citizenship question is no longer an issue. It is constitutional.
But the Supreme Court agreed with the district court that Secretary Ross did not fully disclose his true motives for asking the citizenship question.
Secretary Ross should comply with the Supreme Court order by appearing before the Federal District Court of New York and testifying that in addition to helping the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act, asking the citizenship data would provide data states could use to draw voting district based on the number of citizens or the number of voting-age citizens.
He should add that states facing the loss of congressional seats and Electoral College votes to advocate for representation in these bodies to be based on the number of citizens rather than the number of residents.
If asked if this would benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats, he should answer that it would benefit U.S. citizens, but the court shouldn't ask. The Constitution assigns political parties no role in government and the impact on Republican or Democrats should not be a factor.
5
@William Case, Constitution says "persons" not "citizens".
Quite a lot of crawfishing here. If the records of the now deceased Republican who wrote the Administration's words on this had not surfaced, showing this to be a power grab for "non-hispanic whites", SCOTUS would surely have ruled unambiguously on the side of the demons.
24
We know the rationale. We now know that the idea came from Thomas Hofeller who stated that adding the question would “be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites.”
Wilbur Ross lied and the reason given that this was to help with the voting rights act is laughable.
31
Justice Thomas seems to think that the word "sincerity" is the same as honest, accurate or truthful.
The amazing thing about the dissent is that they know that administrative agencies only have to offer a "reasonable" basis for their action. And courts have traditionally stretched the meaning of 'reasonable' in those cases to include almost anything reason.
But Justice Roberts couldn't sign off on a blatant lie, even with this very flexible definition.
Apparently for for Justices Thomas and Alito a lie is only a lie if they say it is, regardless of what the facts are.
This is no longer a court. It's simply a wing of the Republican party.
43
@Drspock You're wrong. The Court has saved the USA once again ... something it hasn't always done.
If there is a citizenship question couldn't we all (democrats) refuse to answer that particular question on the census form making it a moot point.
12
The answer to the question is not the problem. The concern is that some individuals when given a census form to fill out will refuse to fill out and return the form if that question appears. While you and I know that the form is anonymous and no one should be able to trace it back to us, individuals who do not feel comfortable with government attention maybe less inclined to trust the system. It was a Republican strategist who analyzed this idea and felt that adding that question would dampen the response rate in a way that would be advantageous to the GOP. That was their goal, and why they wanted the question added. How anyone answers the question is really of no concern whatsoever for them.
7
@Andrew J. Cook Some questions are “must answer” questions and some are optional. If the “must answer” questions are not answered then the census form is considered invalid or incomplete and is not counted. I suppose the Commerce Department, if it were allowed to ask the question, could make it a “must answer” question and invalidate any forms on which the respondents refuse to answer. I have worked the census before and, as it is now and has been, many people are afraid to respond, both those who are citizens and non-citizens. Citizens who are survivalists and others who do not trust government do not want to be identified as at any particular address, for example. Trying to count people can be a real nightmare. Attack dogs, threatening signs, shotguns thru the window, you name it, it’s out there waiting for the poor unsuspecting enumerator assigned to the trailer park or the abandoned apartment building, fishing camp, duck blind, etc.
1
@Andrew J. Cook
That would just be silly, quite frankly. There's a reason the question is being asked.
So the Liberal Pundits were wrong.
The Supreme Court did not "Rubber Stamp"
what Trump wanted.
However, if a Country cannot carry out a Census where
it determines how many Citizens it has and how many
non-Citizens, then what does it mean to be a Citizen anymore ?
21
It pretty much means the same thing that it always has. In what way does the census change what citizenship means? The point of the census is to get an accurate accounting of people, whether they are citizens or non citizens. How does the question aid in accomplishing that?
19
@Louise Cavanaugh
The Census did have citizenship questions on it before.
I have no problem in asking the question to
determine the number of citizens and determining the number of people.
5
@John Brown- In what way does not asking a citizenship question on a census deny you any rights as a citizen? Are you saying that if you can't declare citizenship status on a piece of paper that "citizenship" loses all meaning?
3
Watching how the Roberts Court works, there’s every reason to think that this setback to Trump is only temporary. A hangar door has been left open with explicit instructions on how to “wriggle” through it. Rest assured, there will be a citizenship question on the 2020 census form.
11
Yes, they are just giving this administration more time to come up with a better contrived lie. And allow the public time to forget about the recent evidence of the current lie about the push to add the citizenship question
Trump is now requesting a delay in the census. They really don't have a leg to stand on, in this case.
It's ludicrous to claim that the purpose for citizenship question is to enforce the voting rights act. I mean, who was going to match up census responses with voter rolls?
Also, its not as if this administration has ever worked to enforce laws that protect voting rights. In fact, its the polar opposite.
The real reason, which everybody including the justices knows is to deny apportionment and resources to blue states and large urban areas.
Just another tactic, in concert with the totally antiquated Electoral College, to ensure the tyranny of the minority prevails forever.
Yes, Donald Trump, the system is rigged: by and for the benefit of your party.
23
The district court settled the most crucial issue. It found that “the Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.” The Supreme Court agreed. This means that the constitutionality of asking the citizenship question is not at issue. It is constitutional.
But the district court found Ross did not fully disclose his true motives for asking the citizenship question. Like the district court judge, the majority of justices think Ross came into office determined to reinstate the citizenship question and asked other agencies to present arguments for doing so.
Justice Roberts noted, “there was nothing objectionable or even surprising in this. And we agree—to a point. It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy."
However, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the Commerce Department must present a more compete explanation of why it wants the citizenship question reinstated. The department should be able to comply in time to include the citizenship question in the the 2020 census.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf\
8
@William Case
The question should be asked. How odd that democrats don't like gerrymandering but fully support not knowing whether someone is a citizen. Makes no sense.
1
@William Case "Ross came into office determined to reinstate the citizenship question ..."
There never has been a citizenship question on the census. As a lawyer, you should know that.
Piffle.
Read the Conclusion, which describes Secretary Ross’ decision to add the question as, and I quote, “unlawful.”
That is why the Circuit issued an injunction against adding it, which the Court has now let stand.
Stop cherry-picking. You’re way too clumsy at it, and some of us know how to read what’s actually there.
1
Can someone answer this simple question? Why shouldn’t we know how many CITIZENS we have? After all, that is whom the US Government serves. What are Democrats and the media so afraid of? Surely they couldn’t be relying on, in fact encouraging, people who broke our immigration laws and have no legal right to be here to count themselves as citizens who can vote? Oh wait, sorry, I just woke up from my dream where both American political parties put actual American citizens first.
14
@John
Chief Justice Roberts and the majority of the court would have allowed the citizenship question if the Commerce Secretary hadn't lied about the reason for wanting it. If he had just stated that we want the question because it will give Republicans and non-Hispanic Americans an advantage then it would have been okay. Apparently it's legal for government officials to use their office for blatant political advantage as long as they don't lie about it. Same reasoning applies to the partisan gerrymandering decision.
6
The census is intended to ascertain how many people are living in the U.S., not how many citizens are living here. Is there a valid reason to want to know the former? Likely yes, but the purpose of the census is not that. Some time ago it was determined that sort of question messed up the response rate and hence the accuracy of the census and that sort of question was disallowed in order to protect the accuracy of the census. The GOP determined it to be advantageous politically to themselves to have that sort of inaccuracy and then worked to add the question into the latest version of the census. Just read the news reporting on the topic if you want to know more about who, what, and why. It is well documented at this point.
11
The census is to get an accurate count of the people in the country. If you want to county citizens, please do. But don’t make the census inaccurate in the process. Please count citizens all you want. By the way, you directly benefit from the work of noncitizens in this country, who do lots of labor that no one else would do without proper union protection and labor protections etc. which would make the product of their labor much more expensive. Sad but true that you can afford the food you eat because of unscrupulous exploitation of undocumented people (who DO pay taxes).
3
You don't have to be a citizen to vote - you simply need a State-issued ID showing you are considered by that state to be a legal resident. Most Hispanics in the United States ARE legal residents and have no reason to hide from the Census count. Citizenship has nothing to do with being a legal resident allowed to vote in state and federal elections. This question is clearly a Republican effort to threaten and harass legal Hispanic voters. Even though I question states rights to count illegal residents in the Census, if the federal government decides to park illegal residents in a state, it needs to acknowledge it has burdened that state with costs that need to be accountable. Even slaves in the South were considered in the Census. Is the Trump administration saying that Hispanics are less than slaves in its eyes?
3
@Angelsea The right to vote in state elections differs state-by-state. Some have no citizenship requirement, others do. (Maryland being in the no citizenship demanded for suffrage, for state elections).
There is no doubt though, that suffrage for federal elections is only extended to citizens of the United States. (1996-Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act).
@Angelsea Unless it's a local election where noncitizens have been given the power to vote, you have to be a citizen by birth or naturalization to vote in this country.
@Angelsea You are mistaken. You must be a Citizen to vote; even if you are a legal resident you can’t vote if you are not a citizen. The purpose of the Census is to count people, not citizens. It is written in the constitution. The need to know how many people are living in an area is important for infrastructure planning and general knowledge for responsible governance. Whether or not a person is a citizen is not important. Also, in regard to your point about slaves, Slaves were counted as only 1/5 of a person, I think, so that their owners could have greater representation, but slaves had no rights.
1
The "conservative" members of the court are politicians in robes, pure and simple. They don't care one bit for the rule of law.
12
Honestly, I don't get why adding such a question would change the response rate to the Census. No one who is here illegally would ever add their name to the Census - whether there is an explicit question about citizenship status or not. Folks who are citizens or are here legally (via Green card, or whatever) would complete the Census.
BTW, citizenship status used to be a Census question! I was doing some Ancestry research with Censuses from the early 1900s and the folks I was looking in to answered the question truthfully. It was interesting to see their status change from the 1920 census ("alien resident") to the 1930 census ("naturalized citizen".)
11
@GBR There are many people here legally who are themselves not US citizens (H1B visa holders, Green card holders and the like). In the prevailing political atmosphere they may have valid concerns that they might be identified as "alien" even if holding documents permitting their residence.
Even framed as you attempt It is not merely a binary citizen - legal : non-citizen - illegal issue.
Besides which, the proper framing is whether such a question diminishes the head-count of persons. If it places the accuracy of the head-count census at risk, then the enumeration of citizens is best answered in other community surveys, as has been the practice now for decades.
2
@GBR There used to be a question “country of birth” which is useful to people tracking their ancestry, but that is not the purpose of the U S Census as stated in the Constitution. The purpose is to know how many people (not citizens) are living in each area for purposes of infrastructure planning. Questions like country of origin and citizenship were not germane to the purpose of the census. The more questions there are on the forms, the harder it is to count how many people there are.
3
Whether you understand it or not, a GOP strategist determined this was the effect they could expect. Then encouraged the party to support the addition of the question for purely political reasons. I have no idea why you’ve missed the reporting that documents this, but if you want to know more, read it.
3
Having decided Wilbur perjured himself, the Supremes fail to decide on a consequence. Because Republican, I suppose.
Go get 'em John, you unsullied hero of The Law.
8
That Clarence Thomas is a piece of work. Thanks, Joe Biden!
12
@Dagwood
Biden is far from alone in believing two non compatible social philosophies can co-exist in a single government. Goldwater said in 1964 "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Joe Biden's liberty is the liberty of Western democracies and a peaceful resolution of differences and Goldwater's liberty was might makes right.
Joe still makes the same mistake in believing there is a United States of America. How far is the center of America willing to give into would be tyrants before they understand their country is no longer worth saving.
Is yesterday's photo still not enough or will I keep hearing "that is not who we are" until I leave this vale of tears?
2
Looks like we've found the one Republican in Washington who still believes in facts.
5
So, while Justice Thomas muses about the fabrication of an "eye-catching" conspiracy theory, EVERYBODY else has ALREADY SEEN the actual conspiracy, discovered on the hard disk of deceased Republican party operative Thomas Hoffeler - Brilliant!
15
Roberts can afford to appear to be balanced with this ruling, as he and the four other conservative judges just gave Republicans a big win by allowing partisan gerrymandering. This census question "win" is largely moot now.
5
Alito: “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question ... or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
So, Alito believes that while the law requires an explanation, it does not require a complete or even a truthful explanation!
I'm not sure when writing law, legislators must also spell out that the required compliance be honest and truthful. Lying when fulfilling requirements such as these is breaking that law. It's non-compliance worse than giving no answer.
I suspect Judge Alito knows this.
I suspect his explanation for his decision is also incomplete or perhaps dishonest.
10
The Supreme Court is a joke. The next president of the USA (President Biden) should just pack the courts. Let’s not pretend the courts aren’t anything other than a political farce after this latest gerrymandering decision.
10
The Russians invaded us in 2016 by sowing discord to influence our electoral process, thereby helping to elect Trump, whose presidency more and more looks to be illegitimate. Trump and his criminal enterprise were happy to accept Russian help.
Mueller did not find a quid pro quo but did enumerate at least 10 instances of obstruction.
Trump’s behavior since his inauguration has been predicated on his concern that he will be deemed an illegitimate president, a self-fulfilling prophecy no doubt, which will bookend the instances of obstruction, under the umbrella of the abnormality of his persona and his presidency.
The deception and lying of Wilbur Ross, under the direction of Bannon, Trump, and Stephen Miller regarding the census question, was designed to limit voting by brown people and looks more and more racist - Justice Roberts is being kind- however, it looks more and more that this is all about the fear of white Republicans afraid of being a minority. Their behavior also looks like a self-fulfilling prophecy, which hopefully will render the Republican Party a hollow shell.
12
I hate to tell you, people are wondering if Trump was talking about rigging the census when he promised "I alone can fix it." SAD!
4
This decision has just made it easier to sue and obstruct the federal government in all of its actions. Don't think that this won't be used by whichever party is out of power from this day onwards. I wish the Trump administration wasn't adding this question to the census, but Clarence Thomas is right: the government has the power to do this, and it should not be up to the courts to second guess motives every time the government tries to get something done. That way lies further gridlock. Do you think that people will sue to question the motives of people putting single payer healthcare in place, asking at each turn whether the way the law is being implemented is for political gain? Oh yes they will.
2
"...an opponent of unlawful immigration." Is anyone really a proponent of unlawful immigration? Seeking asylum is a lawful reason to request being allowed to immigrate. Since the law allows it, it is incumbent upon every administration to acquire sufficient means to meet the level of service required to adjudicate the requests. The failure of Congress to respond has led to millions of people living in limbo for decades through no fault of their own.
3
One argument I heard was that 50 or so years ago when the question was on the census it wasn't challenged much. So as much as I dislike the apparent discrimination of this President and the Republicans there are good questions on whether or not the citizenship should be there. There should be other work arounds to count all the people in the country outside of the census without there being retaliation.
5
@Nutmeg The last time citizenship was asked of all respondents was 1950, and you're right, it wasn't challenged much, except by the census itself, which found their data to be less accurate than other existing methods of collecting information regarding non-citizens. In 1960 the American Citizenship Survey (ACS) was instituted which sampled 3% of the population to get sufficient data about immigration. In 1980, an effort to include citizenship data in the census was knocked down as counterproductive, as that data is already collected by other means.
It's good to bear that in mind. There is no NEED for this. There are already agencies local, state, and federal that take care of it. That's why this duplication of effort smacks of dirty politics. Why would the Republican party -- which abhors government waste and expense -- want to spend extra money on data they already have access to?
Recent news reports suggest that it was done to suppress the vote in populations that traditionally vote Democrat.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/census-citizenship-question-hofeller.html
3
@Nutmeg
Prior to 1950 is not 50 years ago. The 1940 census was almost 80 years ago.
1
Alito: The Court “should not stick its nose” in agency decision making processes.
Alito: The Court has every right to stick its nose in women’s reproductive choice decisions.
88
Another Obama gift from the Court, it seems. Citizenship is a far more compelling question and more relevant to the composition of the population than the number of toilets, ethnic-race lineage, and how often the family might buy tomatoes.
8
But that’s not what the census is for. It’s for counting all people, not just citizens, and if you add that question to the census then it will not provide an accurate count of all people. The only and best way to get an accurate count of all people—and I repeat that’s the purpose of the census—is to leave that question off.
29
@Alice's Restaurant Perhaps you overlooked the second paragraph - "the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question 'appears to have been contrived'".
Funny things happen when you mix a "compelling question" with a proven liar.
6
@Alice's Restaurant This isn't about toilets or tomatoes. It's about allocation of funding for little things like, police and fire departments, hospitals, airports, roads, bridges, and all that other stuff we pay for with taxes. And yes, even people here illegally pay taxes every time they spend money for clothing, cars, food, books and through their SS withholding taxes.
3
They know it but Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh don't care that the Trump Administration is blatantly lying to them.
They're out of the "you can do whatever you want as long as you are willing to lie about what you're doing" school of jurisprudence.
45
Ah politics! Even the Supreme Court is in on Washington’s favorite pastime!!
The uproar demands that Wilbur Ross lied and therefore should pay the piper for it. Good idea! Then again, if every politician was made to pay the piper for lying, Washington D.C. would be a ghost town.
Republican or Democrat they all lie and cheat. The ones that were honest were defeated, usually at the local level, and are never to be seen populating Washington! Too bad!
4
How is Mr. Ross allowed to lie under oath (sworn testimony to Congress) and get away with it? Did I miss his jail time? I am not confident this won't be over turned. Its good to know that the Supreme Count is likely to allow loop holes in the Constitution to bring down our country. Still angry about the gerrymandering decision.
41
@Angela I'm confident that the SCOTUS gave Trump a mulligan. A term that Trump is extremely familiar with.
2
@TommyTunad
I hope my pessimism us wrong, but no one ever stops him. The good people just quit.
So the takeaway here is that lying to Congress and to the Supreme Court has no consequences?
Justice Roberts is acknowledging what we've all known for some months: that the Trump administration's stated reasons for wanting the question were lies.
You'd think that would prompt the Court to rule that the question should be omitted from the census. But apparently, it just means that the administration has to try to come up with a less obviously false pretext for its blatantly partisan (and racist) intentions.
So, do they just get to keep trying until they come up with a more plausible lie? How is this justice?
178
@Joe M.
No, they are just giving him (Trump or Ross) another chance to be wrong. Nothing they come up with now can negate Roberts rationale.
“The secretary,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the attorney general himself to ask if D.O.J. would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.”
“Altogether,” the chief justice wrote, “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision.”
13
@Kevin H Quoting from the second paragraph: "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the explanation offered by the Trump administration for adding the question “appears to have been contrived.” But he left open the possibility that it could provide an adequate answer."
The way I'm reading that is the court has "left open the possibility" that the administration can submit another explanation, which presumably would then be evaluated on its own merits. Roberts is essentially, "OK, you didn't tell us the truth before, so go ahead and try something else."
Which is why I'm asking: shouldn't there be some penalty for lying to the Court and to Congress? Or should we understand that, based on this precedent, there is no reason not to lie, because the worst that can happen is that you'd be found out and given another chance?
3
@Joe M. No doubt the GOP has a long-range agenda here. We've been told for decades that there were eleven million illegal aliens in the US, then magically the number jumped to twenty million. I've seen estimates that exceed thirty million. Isn't it about time to try and get an actual count? Democrats oppose a citizenship question for one reason, power. If it does dissuade some illegal immigrants from being counted, it might reduce the number of Representatives they receive for the House. The more representatives they can get in the House, the more power they have as well as more Federal funds. At real issue here is should Federal money & House representation be determined by how many Illegal immigrants you have in your state? Many Americans would say absolutely not. The GOP feels that illegal immigrants should not be counted when congressional representation is calculated. If this occurs then western blue states would get serious about immigration reform so the thinking goes. I think it's fair to ask why are we permitting non-citizens & illegal immigrants who don't vote to alter the makeup of Congress? Is this why Dems favor sanctuary cities? SCOTUS will probably approve the citizenship question because it’s within the president’s power regardless of how malign the intent.
4
What a bunch of partisan hypocrites are the "conservatives" on the Supreme Court. In one case - gerrymandering - they say that because the Constitution doesn't include any rules for creating congressional districts, political parties are free to draw districts to increase their own representation in Congress.
But when it comes to adding a citizenship question to the census, with clearly political purposes, they are willing to ignore the clear words of the Constitution that “the whole number of persons in each state" be counted - persons not citizens. Luckily for now, the Chief Justice showed some common sense.
20
@Anonymouse
They are not conservatives; they’re selfservatives.
3
The last time I checked lying to congress was a crime. The Justice Department is obligated by law to prosecute Mr. Ross. Lying to Congress is one of the charges that earned Mr. Cohen jail time. Don't be surprised if Mr. Ross claims he "misspoke".
Only liars find favor with Trump. How is "truth" defined in the Trump administration? The ends justify the means? Situational ethics? Nobody in the Trump administration now longer knows what the truth is?
20
How would Justice Garland have ruled?
11
@JRB Fairly, with nary a whiff of partisanship in his thinking. Quite a bit different from the hack who was nominated after him.
4
Yesterday, we saw that horrific photo of the drowned father with his 2 year old daughter.
Today, we saw the Chief Justice defy the conservatives and save the Constitution once more.
Liberals have to start admitting that Roberts is holding this country together by a thread that few want anymore ... the Constitution.
5
@Sequel Calm down, he just said he'll delay allowing them to do it until they come up with a better excuse.
3
@Seth You underestimate what Roberts did today.
@Sequel
And at the same time Roberts upheld gerrymandering. And remember, this is the same guy who upheld Citizens United. Just because he is merely partisan instead of brazenly partisan does not make him a defender of the constitution!
1
Too bad SCOTUS can't or won't exercise some Judicial Restraint here and let the Executive branch do it important work.
Moreover, the Legislative branch should return its pay checks until it resolves the issue of 12,000,000 ILLEGAL immigrants procreating, perhaps a million more every year.
Thus we issue ILLEGALS a marriage license, a Driver's license, etc. and thereby encourage more of the same, to wit mockery and disrespect of legitimate and necessary immigration laws.
This is not a Democrat or a Republican issue; it is an American issue--- enforce the laws or rescind them.
3
Is this a “major setback”, or just a setback? I’d say the latter.
1
@Gordon Agreed. Roberts gave them another try to "contrive" something that they will believe.
But, you know what WON'T happen? Any consideration of the rationale given by a Republican strategist for adding the question to the census.
3
The census is a count of people. What is later done with the information is another topic altogether. Right wing extremists have proven time and again they can deal with these situations, either through minority voter suppression laws or extreme gerrymandering
18
Some from the GOP may be dismayed that their clandestine efforts to suppress Democratic representation failed, but they should be grateful.
Had the Democrats been in power during a census year, they could have added equally disturbing questions to their census forms to suppress GOP representation.
For instance, these census questions might have been added
"How many guns do you possess?"
"How many of these guns are automatic?
"How many of these guns are illegal?"
all under the guise that the Federal government needs to know this information as to how best to allocated funding to ATF for enforcement.
If the Supreme Court actually was a true conservative strict constructionist court in the spirit of Scalia, then only the question "How many people are in this residence on April 1st?" would be constitutional because it is the only only necessary and sufficient question to be answered to satisfy the Census Clause of Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution.
13
Emphasis on "for now".
The decision also notes that there is nothing unconstitutional about adding the citizenship question in the future (and note that it was included prior to 1950)....they're just waiting for the Commerce Dept. to come up with a more believable rationale.
7
The long-term remedy for preventing injustice is changing the membership in the Senate and retiring Trump. The courts are ill-suited to correct every wrong. There will be other cases and this volatile majority of conservatives are just as likely to give a census gimmick their stamp of approval.
2
Justice Roberts is not questioning the sincerity of the Commerce Secretary, as Justice Thomas wrote, he’s questioning his honesty by politely writing that the stated reason appears to be contrived. No one should doubt Mr. Ross’s sincerity, he sincerely wanted to achieve an undercount of the minority populations by intimidating them. Earlier articles I read claiming the need to add a citizenship question to the census ever explained how adding that question would aid in the implementation of the VRA.
In short, more efficient and less obvious lying will be necessary to get the question added to the census.
7
I have never agreed with anything coming out of Trump’s mouth until today. As he suggested, let’s delay the Census until 2021- when there will be a Democrat in the highest office to oversee the process.
3
The Supreme Court just said, "Oops - 3 strikes, you should be out, but we'll give YOU a fourth strike." Roberts wants to save his reputation while offering the Trump Administration/Republicans another opportunity to tilt the country in their favor, at whatever cost.
2
As a lifelong Democrat, I completely support adding a citizenship question to the US Census. Representation should be based on citizenship, not on whether your particular state has a large number of illegal or legal immigrants. Why is this so hard for the left wing of the Democratic Party to understand?
The move of Democrats to the left is going to be made more painful by the Supreme Court decision today. If there was any awareness, the party would move to the middle. They are going to have to swing voters to cross party lines more than ever after today.
If Democrats could return to policies that don’t rely on appealing to the progressive wing and potential immigrant voters - gerrymandering and the citizenship question won’t matter. Until then, this country will be Trump’s to lose in 2020.
5
The Constitution mandates a count of all residents, not just ‘citizens’ regardless of what you think the census ‘should be’. These numbers are used to determine what resources, such as police funding, are needed by the population of given areas, it’s not just for setting voting districts
11
@Louise
Except the Constitution says count people, not citizens.
3
@Louise It is hard for the left wing on the Democratic Party to understand that representation should be based on citizenship because that is NOT what the Constitution says. The Constitution is explicit that representation should be based on the "whole number of persons" ... not "the whole number of citizens."
1
The Census is a marketing survey used for political party election data, such as targeted marketing, multi-channel marketing, direct marketing, and financial budgeting and donation solicitation.
1
I will not be responding to the census as a form of civil disobedience to this ruling.
If enough of us do not respond, the will have a less accurate census as a result of including that question!
@Yeet
But that's the point of all this, to produce a less accurate census and benefit Republicans in terms of funding and representation.
Be careful.
2
Democracy is dead in the United States. Now each party and state wlll have an incentive to import people to increase their political and economic power. States that don't will see their citizens voting power diluted further every year. This is the end of the experiment in government based on the will of citizens. We are now an open borders country where citizens mean nothing.
1
Thus giving the Trump administration and GOP more time to make a better argument. So that it doesn't look like its a GOP owned SCOTUS decision.
This decision will help Trump with re-election. Many moderate middle class independents who vote Democrat do not want to continue to reward illegal immigration.
This gives many a reason to keep Trump in office despite other objections to his Presidency
3
Only for people who are hardcore anti-immigrant. The idea that people in the middle will choose their vote for president based on a supreme court ruling on the allowability of a new census question is insane. This is nowhere on the list of priorities for undecided voters.
2
The patent diversity in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court makes the division of the nine justices into liberal and conservative blocks rather arbitrary and untenable.
So that means any person or entity can file a lawsuit against any Obama era decision, and prevail if it can be remotely proven that the Obama Administration was not being fully and completely truthful in its real intention. That also means that the Trump Administration can reverse Obama era actions for the same reason, and will prevail if the reversal is challenged in court.
2
At least they did something right today, but will the good done here be enough to offset the awful gerrymandering decision?
1
I'm not sure why four justices think its ok for executive branch representatives to perjure themselves multiple times in multiple courts. How can they rationalize that is good for the country?
2
Maybe people who disagree with this ruling (leaving the citizen question off) should not fill out a census form.
1
We already know the reason why they want to add the citizenship question. The person who suggested to the Trump administration to add the question had a study showing that the question will help Republicans win more elections. Had the Supreme Court uphelp it knowing that fact, they would have zero credibility going foward. The Reps know they can’t win elections in the future without cheating and ruthlessly grabbing for power. This is a prime example.
4
The Chief Justice is where he always wanted to be - to be the deciding vote on all important cases. And guess what, he gets to decide who will write the opinion of the court! Here, he felt he HAD to side with the liberals given the scope of the evidence, but only in the narrowest possible way so that he can review and reverse himself on later when the time and circumstances are better suited to his inclinations (you know, "umpires" have to appear to be fair).
This is a temporary "victory" at best.
1
This is not a political issue but partisan gerrymandering is?
Come on.
1
My assumption about Roberts is that he doesn't want his court to become a laughing stock. Wilbur Ross and his admin pals are trying to do exactly that, but they were trying to do it behind a curtain. Now that the curtain has been pulled back Roberts must have been relieved that his court was saved from making a big mistake. If he ever wants his court to be on a par with the Warren Court, he has to be wary of those who are all too willing to set him up as a patsy.
1
What country doesn't want to know the number of citizens and non-citizens within its borders?
3
The United States of America !
1
So Chief Justice Roberts is the swing vote. My gut tells me he won’t overturn Roe but, as in the gerrymandering case, he will most likely vote with the conservative bloc when he doesn’t fear his legacy is at stake.
1
Assuming the question is added to the census, what would happen if people simply choose to not answer it?
I would like to not answer it as a protest, if there's no significant downside.
2
@Redacted "Under Title 13 of the U.S. Code, you can be fined up to $100 for refusing to complete a census form and $500 for answering questions falsely. However, the Website for the U.S. Census Bureau points out that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 effectively increased these minimum fines to $5,000." From Slate via Google.
Well that would result in an undercount and therefore less representation for your area, which is the exact outcome Democrats are trying to avoid in their fight to remove the citizenship question, so your protest would do even more damage to your cause and only help the conservative gerrymanders you say you are trying to fight.
2
While I agree with Judge Alito, all the Court is ultimately saying is that it has to clarify its reasons for including the question since the Administration was sloppy in the reasons given to the court. Once done, the Census Bureau can proceed.
4
@AZRandFan "Sloppy". Now there's a euphemism for us all to add to "pass away" and "cuchi cuchi". (Sorry, Charo.) Intentionally lying in order to deceive, so as to get what one wants is not merely sloppy where I grew up, which was the NYC area. Bearing false witness was described in other, somewhat harsher terms. Is that not what Secretary Ross did when testifying before Congress?
The court also said Ross was not truthful in his explanation (did he commit perjury?!?) and had concocted this cover story for including the question on the census from literally his first day in office.
I suppose giving a new explanation (a better lie? and why does he get a second chance to lie: really?) in your view is OK and just a formality before then moving ahead with the real purpose of putting the citizen question on the census: undercounting the population in Democratic districts.
Got it: OK thanks!
1
The Court's ruling is more significant than might first appear. After the administration comes up with some additional reasons, the case is likely to end up back in the district court. The difference is that on this go-round, the Hofeller evidence can come in.
Then the question becomes whether government officials who act in bad faith are beyond the reach of the courts. Alternately stated, does motive count? On various occasions, the Court has said both that it does and it doesn't. Rucho, today's voting-rights case, at least suggests that it doesn't count on that question. That does not necessarily mean it would not count for purposes of the census.
It is not clear yet how far beyond judicial reach Rucho puts gerrymandering. Suppose, for example, that a legislature redrew districts for the express purpose of diminishing the voting power of African-Americans, clear discrimination on the basis of race. Would the Court still say that the issue is non-justiciable? Only time will tell, because Rucho is a clear invitation to state legislatures to do just that, or to discriminate against some other group that the legislature disfavors. Some states will RSVP.
10
I am an American citizen. I have traveled the world as a business man. My mother was a British citizen. I have lived in western Europe. There is not a country in the world that is afraid to ask questions on nationality of people living and visiting their countries. The question on the upcoming census is not a big deal. By fighting to remove the question you will put doubt in the minds of voters. People will ask why it must be removed? The country really does not need to be divided anymore. Please use common sense on this issue.
Western Europe, Russia , Scandinavia, Canada, South America, Africa, the Middle East Japan, and China just to name a few all require visas and documentation while visiting , working, and living in those countries.
Very curious position to take politically. May be very hard to defend. Trust is very important.
20
@The Mighty Quinn: this comments papers over the difference between questions asked for the purpose of a visa and those for a census. The purposes of the two are not the same. Regarding the census, whose primary purpose as described in the Constitution, is to count all inhabitants, the argument against the citizenship question is that it will discourage participation. Whether you believe that or not, questions asked by foreign countries for visa purposes aren't relevant.
35
@The Mighty Quinn The US Constitution says that the census will be used to decide the number of congressional seats and electoral college votes. Do any of the countries you are clearly more familiar with do that?
I ask because that is precisely the source of the problem with asking that question.
4
You get that visas and passports and customs checks are different from the Census, yes?
4
The ONLY reason to not allow the citizenship question on the census is to give cover to those who are here illegally. We have a right to know who how many citizens/non-citizens are living in our country. Fact is I think that information is critical for apportionment of funding from the federal government.
17
@Mystery Lits - The Constitution does not establish your desire as the basis for the Census. You are welcome to advocate for the collection of that information independent from the Census.
7
@Mystery Lits
The census is not a reliable method to determine who is living here illegally. A system to monitor expired visas is.
Also very few non-citizens are undocumented/staying here against the law. The whole act of equating the citizenship question with "illegal" immigration is done in bad faith.
2
@Mystery Lits
The constitution dictates counting people living here.
How would you count non-citizens legally here with a green card?
3
The Constitution establishes the Census for *only* the very critical purpose of determining the House of Representatives, and in turn the Electoral College. *Anything* which has any potential of interfering in the accuracy of the Census for that one and only constitutional purpose must be viewed as unconstitutional.
Therefore, *nothing* should be included in the Census other than establishing a basic count of people. Anything else always carries the potential of skewing the results and thereby violating the requirement of the Census established by the Constitution.
Our government does have the constitutional right to collect other information, but it must do so independently of the Census so as to not undermine the fundamental constitutional purpose of the Census. “Convenience” is not a valid argument for undermining the fundamental constitutional purpose of the Census.
51
@Keith So what you are saying is the House of representatives should be representing people who have no business even being here?
@Joe O'Malley
Do you realize that non-citizens aren't automatically illegal immigrants?
Undercounting with the census in this case will effect citizens as well, as has been discussed before.
Finally, the census numbers influence funding distribution for public services like infrastructure grants. Roads don't care if you're a citizen, they degrade all the same.
1
@Keith
In fact, any other questions are included only after being subjected to rigorous pretesting and other quality control measures, so that they are unlikely to undermine the integrity of the central objective of the census. One of the multiple violations of the Administrative Procedure Act in this case was the failure to subject the citizenship question to the same rigorous scrutiny as the other questions.
The decision raises some interesting questions about why agencies promulgate the policies that they do and their justification for doing so.
This decision and others this term concerning administrate law have set the stage for a more robust review of the whole process by the Court. Sometimes liberals will be happy and sometimes conservatives will - time will tell. The court terms to come will be fascinating to watch.
2
Justice Roberts is the most powerful man in the US. SCOTUS allows unfettered gerrymandering, but yet in an election cycle, the Chief Justice now questions a political operative motives, but (momentarily) backs away from certain conservative partisanship, similar to affirming Obamacare years ago.
We have to wonder if the glare of an overt conservative court out of step with the American people is the only reason the Chief Justice is hesitant to use his full majority to change the laws and history of our nation.
17
@Sailaway
That is my take. He is walking a careful path as the 'middle' vote, in an effort toward preserving institutional credibility. [I do think he gives some real and personal importance to the SC as an institution.] Today was a tradeoff: 'No' to the Census question and 'Yes' to the permissibility of gerrymandering. I don't even think it was a hard one for him. There is ground to stand on in both judgments. Soggy ground wrt gerrymandering, but ground nonetheless. In the ongoing discussions, the mathematicians were unable to offer a compelling solution. Had they been able to articulate a simple, plainly fair allocation scheme, one of the five might have bought in. I suspect that at some point (barring total economic collapse) rapid personal and instant digital mobility will allow a conversation about electing representatives based on a 'top X vote getters' rule. This would finesse the geographic boundary selection issues from all but the codified 'Two Senators per State' rule. Of course the conversation would start a brawl, because implementing it would almost surely result in more independent candidates being elected.
Regarding the Census question: My guess is that the Hefeller information etc will compel the lower court to rule against any specious response from the administration about legitimate reasons for the question. Problem solved.
1
Exactly what I was thinking.
This ruling and the gerrymandering ruling should be clarion calls to vote in 2020 to change to Democratic control of the White House and Senate.
99
@Jeff
Turnout on election day is the key!
Alito: “To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
If you follow his logic, then there's no legal basis for Civil Rights laws; i.e. he could easily substitute: “The federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a discriminatory exclusion on job applications (e.g. Black people need not apply), or whether the reasons given by the employer for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
Similarly, any law based on determining "criminal intention" would be invalidated by Alito's reasoning.
Sometimes the absurdity of the statements made by some of The Supremes just boggles my mind!
109
@Paul-A
Do include Justice (???) Thomas in the indictment of your last sentence.
3
@Paul-A
Poor Alito doesn't know why he's there.
No wonder he's so often confused.
SCOTUS exists, largely, to adjudicate questions of propriety and interpretation regarding legislation, pending or passed. If he can't manage that, perhaps he should resign.
7
Alito is the most unprincipled justice on the court. His judicial philosophy is simple: Pick the side you like and concoct some legal rationale in the "opinion" or, in other words, the same thing Wilburr Ross did with his contrived rationale for adding the census question.
4
As a Trump supporter, this is tough and somewhat surprising.
But ever the optimist, I look forward every single executive decision of the next Democratic president facing lengthy court challenges.
Every single one.
9
@John that already happened in the Obama administration. The difference is: Obama's staff was competent enough to craft directives that consistently withstood even the most bracing judicial scrutiny. (They also acted in good faith and didn't commit perjury before Congress, which likely helped.)
4
@John
Justice Thomas put it just so.
This ruling allows the party out of power to challenge the sincerity-sincerity?-of every political appointees decisions.
1
This is a meaningless issue and victory that now Democrats can cling to to live for another day. Thank Trump for the crumbs from the table while he feasts on the royal roast pig with an apple in its mouth. Coupled with Mueller agreeing to speak in public again, the doghouse is beginning to feel like the Taj Mahal. No pun intended and forget that that’s really just one big crypt.
5
When will Wilbur Ross be tried for perjury?
124
@DaWill And/or impeached?
4
@DaWill
When will he succumb to the deathly pallor he displays? Seriously, another commenter to the G20 article noted how “old and dottering” he looked today. He may escape justice but not Nature. Take heart in that.
4
Roberts has decided that this potato was just too hot. Do not mistake him. He hasn’t had a turn of heart, but he has realized that his name would forever be associated with the four justices who would happily enable the Trump cabal to put their thumbs on the scales by artificially deflating numbers of persons in Democratic districts. In a just world, Ross would be inducted for lying to Congress about the motivation for the question. But, at this point we should at least be glad that Roberts punted in favor of his own reputation.
254
@Avatar
Likely it is more of Roberts' attempted counterbalance to his complicity in killing American democracy with the gerrymandering decision today.
But it's just smokescreen.
Because it doesn't matter now if we count all those (potential) Democratic voters -- as the floodgates have just opened for the banana Republican gerrymanders of blue districts.
20
Since Chief Justice Roberts and a majority of the Court has held that “altogether the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision,” can we affirm that with the Court's decision, Wilbur Ross will now be prosecuted for perjury and incarcerated? Under federal law, Ross would face up to five years and fines for his crime. More significantly, it might do something to stop, or at least slow, the steady stream of lies emerging from the administration.
180
@Ockham9
I am not sure how long the statute of limitations lasts for lies to Congress, but since William Barr is AG, this prosecution might well have to wait until a Democrat wins the White House and appoints a real AG.
Ross would be just one of a hoard of liars to Congress in this maladministration.
So many perjurers, so little time ...
4
Does not make up for the gerrymandering fumble. They throw us crumbs and keep most of the loaf for themselves. Pay close attention people, this is sleight of hand to con us into thinking that the Supreme COurt is being fair. They are playing the long con and we must not be lulled.
110
@arusso Roberts did not rule out favoring it if Ross can fumble up a reasonable sounding excuse.
This should have been sent back since there is a case pending in a lower court over the new evidence that came out after Hofeller's death.
Roberts didn't do that. He said "Come back with a reason I can sell as legitimate."
7
I just don't get it. Why should anybody fear declaring their citizenship on a census form? Prior to 1950 this was a routine question. Nobody would be punished for whatever answer they write down. Thus, this is truly an absurdity pushed by the left. I am a proud American and if no place to note it on the form then I will write it in on top of the form in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS.
17
@Donald, i am a citizen, many generations back, and if that question showed up on my census form, I had no intention of answering it, in protest.
4
The purpose of the census is to count people, not US citizens.
7
@Donald "Nobody would be punished for whatever answer they write down"
There is already documented evidence that just the opposite is true.
4
Again, the Democrats do not want an accurate census that outlines the status of all individuals in the United States. Instead, they advocate that noncitizens violate Federal law as to enter our country illegally and then not comply with our laws that they fill out a census form. How can we comply with the Voting Rights Act or other laws applicable to our citizens if we do not know who is here is a citizen, has a green card, or is here illegally? As we will hear tonight, Democrats are all about open borders and anyone showing up just because they want to. Minus well prohibit paid admission gates to Disneyland or Disney World or the requirement to pay for a "free press". Will Nancy Pelosi let me camp in her backyard for free, using her utilities, without granting me permission? Doubt it.
13
@Jim WRONG AGAIN.
Democrats do want an accurate census. That is why we are against this question.
Republicans want a census they can use to gerrymander with, and corrupt the districting data. They know exactly what they are trying to do, and it started years ago!
6
@Jim
The constitution specifies counting people only.
How would you count non-citizens legally here with a green card?
3
@Jim
“Minus well"[sic] I think translates to 'Might as well' for others confused by his what???? start in his penultimate sentence. For his "because they want to", no clue whatever, which might also apply to Jim.
Justice Roberts seems to indicate that Ross lied about the origin of the question. The man who swore an oath of public service lied to the Supreme Court.
No matter, nothing to see here. Send the question back to the liar and ask for a better lie.
Life in the trump era just got worse.
150
@Zeke27 But he is willing to let him have a "do over" even though everyone in the country knows the whole story.
7
@1 bite at a time
Totally agree. One more Federalist judge away from having no Federal Constitution. States can gerrymander and do as they please. Everyone can't live in California--could only afford it in the 60's as a student.
Quoting correspondence by Andrew Jackson, whose portrait President Trump has both hung in his White House office, and also committed to keeping on the $20 bill rather than the planned shift from that early President / war hero / racist genocidal slave owner to slave liberator and feminist icon Harriet Tubman: "The decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate."
In popular memory: "John Marshall [Chief Justice and architect of the Supreme Court's status as a coequal branch of government] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
I fully expect an analogous attitude and similar behavior from Trump and his administration, printing the census with the citizenship question whatever the courts decide. As powers in the nation, they have not, so far, shown much visible respect for norms, rules, or the law of the land, when these stand in the way of their goals and desires.
11
I wonder if even the SCOTUS couldn't stomach the irony and chutzpah of the Trump administration using the argument that their case rested on enforcing the Voting Rights Act that the Court eviscerated.
26
@Harvey Green
Similar subterfuge to firing the head of the FBI for being unfair to Hillary Clinton.
Can we stop with the euphemisms--"Mr. Ross was not being truthful". How about just saying it outright, Mr. Ross lied to Congress while under oath.
256
@Sarah
" Mr. Ross lied to Congress while under oath."
yes, but kind of a sticky point for the Supreme Court as both Thomas and Kavanaugh lied to Congress under oat
20
@Sarah
Ross committed perjury like everyone else in this lawless administration
11
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. filed his own partial dissent.
“To put the point bluntly,” he wrote, “the federal judiciary has no authority to stick its nose into the question whether it is good policy to include a citizenship question on the census or whether the reasons given by Secretary Ross for that decision were his only reasons or his real reasons.”
So it no longer matters to Alito whether a witness provides the real reasons? So, lying in court is acceptable to him? The depravity in these right wing justices is nauseating.
Roberts taketh and Roberts giveth away. Give this administration the benefit of the doubt??????
6
Similar to @Rudran, I think the 2 decisions handed down today are consistent. Justice Thomas and his conservative comrades can't seem to distinguish between preserving the democracy and permissible political shenanigans. Not for nothing, citizens can correct the gerrymandering issue by voting, as @Rudran noted. Skewing the census has no similar recourse.
11
I can imagine the following will now happen: Donald Trump will publicly disregard this SC ruling and order the Commerce Dept to print census forms with the citizenship question. If Old Plutocrat Ross agrees, he keeps his job. If he disagrees, he gets fired and a Trump loyalist like Kobach becomes interim Commerce Secretary and orders the printing of census forms with the citizenship question.
Nothing is off the table with Donald Trump, especially when it comes to lawyers. He despises lawyers and basically sees them as useless sacks of dirt who were made to do his bidding.
6
To paraphrase:
"What you are proposing, Trump Administration, will PROFOUNDLY undercut the Voting Rights Act; however, you have not given a clear enough reason why you want to do it THIS WAY in particular".
Why am I not comforted by their indecision?
6
If Commerce needs to print questionnaires next week, they should print them without this horrible question. Should a later court decision reinstate the question, they can amend the forms. Most respondents are asked/expected to respond electronically anyway. Surely the electronic questionnaire could be modified much closer to the time when census responses are called for.
2
This really isn’t a big setback for the Trump Administration. They can find out whether people are US citizens by asking other questions that don’t directly question if they are US citizens.
Here are some examples:
- Were you born in the US?
- If you were not born in the US, on what visa/program did you come to the US on?
- Are you eligible or in the process of obtaining US citizenship?
I do believe the US government has every right to know how many people residing within its borders are citizens. The citizenship question has been on previous censuses and that sets the precedence that it’s legal to put it back on the upcoming 2020 census.
6
@M. Gessbergwitz
Their ostensible reasons for determining citizenship are what is at issue, not the means of determining it.
And those reasons are a pretext for cement Republican majorities, and punishing Democratic districts by reducing their Federal funding.
Re "the US government has every right to know how many people residing within its borders are citizens" -- I don't disagree, but the have other means to do so that will not distort the findings of the Constitutionally-mandated decennial census.
1
@M. Gessbergwitz
The constitution specifies counting people only.
How would you count non-citizens legally here with a green card?
If you can't come up with a "reasoned explanation" for a political action until after the fact, could it ever be considered "reasoned"?
6
If one is a so-called originalist and an honest man, there is no choice but to rule against Trump .
7
Including undocumented immigrants in the census count will allow additional political power to states where lax enforcement of immigration laws attract large populations of undocumented aliens. How is this a good incentive for enforcing immigration law? The presence of illegal aliens will give those states greater power in electing a President. In short, foreign citizens have sway in our presidential elections. If that doesnt concern you...
10
@Don Q
The constitution specifies counting people only.
How would you count non-citizens legally here with a green card?
3
If your concern is foreign influence on our elections, then please focus on Russian influence from beyond our borders. Remember that illegal aliens cannot vote, so they have no direct influence on our elections. More non-citizens means more representation for those states in the House of Representatives, but citizens choose those representatives, not illegal aliens. The census is meant to count all people so that resources can be allocated properly. Citizenship has a different purpose.
3
@Don Q
The Constitution demands a count of residents.
What you propose violates the Constitution.
1
Whatever the intent behind it, having a citizenship question o on the census makes perfect sense, otherwise why bother having citizenship at all? Why not then simply abolish the concept, on a worldwide basis and let all people be free to live wherever they choose and be counted each time a given locale chooses to count their inhabitants? If such would help to break down the tribal mentalities that plague much of human relations, then it might be worth doing. Otherwise, if I'm a citizen and expect both a measure of benefits and representation from same, having the government count me as a citizen seems a necessary fact.
9
@Patrick because the census is a count of people, not citizens. What is done with that information comes later, and right wing extremists have proven time and again they can deal with it, either through active minority voter suppression or racist gerrymandering.
2
@Patrick, the intent matters. Much like literacy tests were used to bar African Americans from voting. A literacy test is not racist by itself, but the intent and usage of the test was racist.
1
So, Justice Roberts is telling the Trump administration to come up with some better reasons to add the citizenship question, and then we'll allow it. Let's see what they come up with folks!
5
Generally, I’m not sure why it’s so wrong to have the citizenship question. This seems like one more think that has become way too divisive in the age of Trump and the far right, and the far-left. I can understand why people don’t want to encourage illegal immigration, but I also think immigrants add a lot to our society. I just think it’s best done in a controlled manner where people don’t jump the line be doing it illegally. There are huge numbers of people waiting to come through appropriate channels - shouldn’t they get the first chance?
Does everything have to be so extreme?
9
@Karen - That's two separate issues. Many like me who distinguish illegal from legal immigration oppose the citizenship question on the census form.
@Mason But then, if you have nothing to hide, then why are you so adamant about not declaring what your citizenship is? Are you not proud to be an American?
In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the majority had done something extraordinary. “For the first time ever,” he wrote, “the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale.”
Thomas lives in a world where Trump is sincere.
26
@Marc Kagan
At some point there will be a Dem president who appoints a Dem cabinet.
When the multitude of Republican lawsuits come in asking judges to determine if the Dem Secretaries were being sincere in order to stop or at least delay a Dem political appointees action, remember Justice Thomas’ words.
2
The computer files of Thomas Hofeller could hardly be more explicit about the political reasons the GOP would like to add the citizenship question. The meetings early on in this administration between Wilbur Ross, Steven Bannon and Kris Kobach on the question speak for themselves. The only people using “smoke and mirrors” are the Republicans.
16
@Susan exactly. Knowing this, how could they vote any different w/o losing all credibility
This is exactly why the new federal tax increases on big blue cities and states with high SALT’s are so very important to other Americans.
2
The mission of the census is to count people. So limit the job to that - count people.
Maybe break it down by gender and age but that is it.
Anything else is intrusive and goes beyond the scope of what we expect from the census.
25
The evidence is overwhelming that the present administration plotted to weaponize the Census to diminish the political power of the Democratic party, and that it has lied every place its illegitimate objective has been reviewed.
They who place selfish interest above core Constitutional principle will vindicate neither the Constitution nor their interest.
6
I don't understand how it's not in the country's interest to know who in the US is a citizen and who is not. All these howls of "transparency"-unless it doesn't suit one's political agenda, of course.
8
@Sarah
The constitution specifies counting people only.
How would you count non-citizens legally here with a green card?
2
"In sworn testimony before Congress, Mr. Ross said he had decided to add the question “solely” in response to a Justice Department request in December 2017 for data to help it enforce the Voting Rights Act. Three federal trial judges have ruled that the evidence in the record demonstrated that Mr. Ross was not being truthful."
Isn't it a federal crime to lie in testimony to Congress?
41
Why would anyone insist on not knowing someone is a citizen?
6
@AACNY
Because the US Constitution mandates the enumeration of "persons," not "citizens."
Slaves counted as 3/5 of a person, and they were NOT citizens.
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 2:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. 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, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. ... "
So for the purposes of the census, all "persons" need to be counted, and if a question on the census would likely throw off the count, it has no business being asked.
Is that "crystal clear"?
@Joe From Boston
No, if the information is going to be used in any manner that affects citizens their status should be known.
so, Wilbur Ross lied to congress during "sworn testimony" about the intent of the citizenship question. Why is he not held in contempt of congress, and why wouldn't the scotus just throw the whole thing out as a result? I'm sure I don't understand most of this stuff. It's hard to believe the blatant dishonesty in this government.
7
This is a positive development but far from settled. While it seems the New York court will prohibit the question, if Barr comes up with a rationalization that is palatable to Roberts, the Supremes could still over turn the New York ruling. I'll be celebrating when the forms are printed without the offending question.
95
@Lee
The Supreme Court will not be in session from June 28 until the first Monday in October (October 7 this year) so unless they hold a highly unusual "special session" just to review the census issue again, it is very likely that the question will not be on the census form because of time constraints on printing the forms.
In addition, the Virginia case was just sent back to that district court from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to hear evidence about the Hofeller matter. That court could put an injunction on the citizenship question until it resolves the issue in its case.
5
It is disturbing that four justices find perjury acceptable as long as it fits their political ends.
7
Here's the 2010 Census: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/decennial/technical-documentation/questionnaires/2010questionnaire.pdf
Q5. A Y/N re Hispanic origin.
Q7. One of the boxes available: __ At a seasonal or second residence.
Common sense: Seasonal [worker]
This, too, was a citizenship question based on Q5 answer.
Truly appalling that the 4 hard-right conservatives are so willing to throw out the constitution and nearly 250 years of precedent, ignore well established administrative law, and accept blatant lies for the sake of naked partisan advantage. They are also, in their opinion, signaling to the GOP in the White House, Congress and state governments that they could do anything and get a pass from them if it comes to SCOTUS.
2
It's less a matter of "smoke & mirrors" & more a matter of the Hofeller smoking gun.
1
The Supreme Court knew, when it accepted this case, that the Trump administration’s reasoning for the citizenship question was “contrived,” yet their surly questions to the attorneys asking that the question be withdrawn indicated the Court’s willingness to accept ComSec Wilbur Ross at his dishonest word.
Now that Thomas Hofeller’s ghost has spoken from beyond the grave, it has no choice but to unhappily acknowledge that the Commerce Secretary and the president’s solicitor general lied last month. The Roberts Court couldn’t pull the trigger today but has ruled that it will accept a lower court’s decision.
The Court has already ruled that it can’t (or won’t) decide the gerrymandering question because it’s not disallowed by the Constitution.
Neither is car-jacking. Or space exploration. Or...
5
This Supreme Court session has rendered some unexpected verdicts against Trump. The citizenship verdict is welcome as a non-political decision. I agree with the Court on the gerrymandering issue as well - to the Democrats I say go win the vote and redraw the maps. Even better, seek to install non-partisan commissions to draw these maps. The Court cannot and should not draw or evaluate district boundaries. At best they can decide if these commissions are required - which, unfortunately, is a State and not Federal subject.
7
@Rudran Clearly, the court is partisan.
1
@Rudran. Apparently you miss the point. You can’t redraw the map unless you land the seats. If a 77% majority is insufficient to give you the seats-hey, Catch 22.
6
@Rudran
How do you win the vote when districts have been drawn with the finest stastical and computational tools available to tilt the playing fiels against you? How do you win when you get 5% more votes but are still not the majority in the legislature?
4
I do not understand how the 4 justices who espouse an ideology, based upon fundamentally deep skepticism over all things administrative-state in nature, can then also turn around and sustain poorly reasoned/flimsily justified actions by the same state's administrators.
Could someone explain that? It seems to me to be
a fundamental contradiction.
39
@bl Justice Thomas is the worse of the conservatives; he got to the top, then pulled up the ladder that helped him there. He provides a template of what we don't want in a SC Justice - discriminatory in so many ways. For a partial explanation of his self-hating outlook, read his autobiography. It's stunning.
6
@bl
Cognitive dissonance is a high art with conservatives and the GOP.
6
Perjury indictments are uncommon in civil cases, but Ross might be a candidate here. Allowing perjury without sanction in a high visibility case damages the legal system by encouraging more perjury.
212
A story yesterday indicated that the Commerce Department has 1 July, 2019 deadline for printing of census forms. A lower court case was reopened yesterday, and probably would not have concluded their action before this coming Monday. In effect, the Supreme Court h=gave a green light, to the status quo, that is, the Commerce Department will more than likely go ahead, print census forms with the citizenship question.
Combined this, with the legalization of partisan gerrymandering, it creates a situation where the GOP will be able to dominate local,state and federal politics until such time there is a major push back by the electorate. Today, the Great Experiment was put on life support with a very bad prognosis.
48
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the article said that the question is currently blocked while the decision is being made by the courts. So if the census forms were printed under this ruling and before the next case concludes, then the census would not have this awful question on it. I completely agree with your sentiment and comment on the Supreme Court's decision on partisan gerrymandering.
60
@Cody
An article in yesterday's NYT, indicated that a lower court did block the questions, but has to settle the issue before next Monday, because the Department of Commerce has to start printing census forms. Right now the question is on the forms, but will be removed if they are told to do so. So, the clock is ticking to get the lower court to prohibit the question. The prosecution has a very limited time line to get a court to prevent the question for being printed on census forms. You can thank the Supreme Court for not ruling on this, as opposed to leaving an opening fro the Trump Administration.
8
Supremes threw gerrymandering back to the states, not making it legal at all yet. They simply denied their position as the place to decide this issue.
2