This is what’s at stake in the Supreme Court fight over the 2020 Census | Wednesday Morning Coffee
Good Wednesday Morning Fellow Seekers.
Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled support for a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, which people on both sides of the issue say could have a serious impact on the decennial population count.
First up, from CNN, the who, what, when, where of what happened Tuesday:
“After more than an hour and a half of arguments where the justices repeatedly interrupted each other and counsel, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch suggested that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was within his right to add the question.
“Chief Justice John Roberts asked questions that seemed at times favorable to the administration, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed that Ross has discretion in the area and that other countries ask a similar question. He called it a “common question” internationally.
“The four liberal justices pounced on the administration’s argument however, asking whether the addition of the question would reduce the number of respondents to the census. Justice Stephen Breyer asked why Ross overruled census officials in making his decision.“Justice Sonia Sotomayor was perhaps the most persistent questioner. She pressed Solicitor General Noel Francisco on why the question was being asked of all recipients after some “65 odd years” of being left off.
“She said there was “no doubt” that people — non citizens and their households — would respond less. Justice Elena Kagan told Francisco that she searched the record for Ross’s justification in 2018, but came up empty. She suggested that Francisco was providing a kind of “post hoc rationalization” after the decision was made.”
Now, from Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Entin (via The Conversation), here’s what’s at stake in the case:
When Ross directed that the 2020 census include that question, he claimed that it was necessary to allow the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting, more effectively.
Critics argue that the government has other ways of obtaining the information to enforce that law and that asking about citizenship will discourage census participation, especially by Latinos.
If people don’t participate in the census, that could result in a less accurate population count. And that could have important political and financial implications for years to come. The census determines how many seats each state has in the House of Representatives. It’s also used to allocate federal funds for a wide range of purposes, including Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, school aid and highways. So the stakes are high.
On April 23, the Supreme Court will hear the government’s appeal in the New York case.
Getting to court
The first question is whether courts have any authority over census disputes.
The Administrative Procedure Act says that courts may not review decisions that are “committed to agency discretion by law.” What’s more, language in the Constitution and the Census Act seems to confer virtually unfettered discretion on federal officials to design the census as they see fit. The Census Act, for example, authorizes the secretary of commerce to conduct the census “in such form and content as he may determine.”
But the Supreme Court has said that this language probably won’t prevent courts from addressing the dispute about the citizenship question here. The justices have heard several challenges to aspects of previous censuses, and lower courts have heard many more. So the government’s efforts to dismiss the challenges to the citizenship question unsurprisingly have failed.
Even if the decision to include the citizenship question is subject to judicial review, the plaintiffs must have standing to sue. This means, most importantly, that they have suffered a legally cognizable injury. Speculative harms, or those that will occur too far down the road, don’t qualify.
The plaintiffs have claimed, relying in part on past research by the Census Bureau, that asking about citizenship will discourage participation in the census and that affected states and communities will lose congressional seats and federal funds as a result.
Courts have accepted this argument in earlier census challenges, but most of those cases arose after the census was taken rather than, as in this instance, before the census takes place. However, this difference shouldn’t matter, because the Supreme Court in 1999 upheld a challenge to plans for the 2000 census.
On the merits, the plaintiffs claim that the citizenship question is intended to discourage Latinos and other immigrants from participating in the 2020 census. They say that will produce an inaccurate count and therefore is unconstitutional.
The challengers cite many statements by President Trump, including his description of Mexicans as criminals and “rapists” when he launched his campaign, as well as more recent statements that immigrants are “animals” who “infest” our nation.
They also cite evidence that the Commerce Department pressed the Justice Department to send its letter about the citizenship question under pressure from top White House aides such as Stephen Bannon. Moreover, Ross ordered the inclusion of the citizenship question over the objections of career Census Bureau demographers, who cited evidence that the question would deter participation in the census. This may suggest a departure from ordinary decision-making procedures.
To prevail on their constitutional challenge, the plaintiffs must prove that Secretary Ross intended to discriminate against immigrants when he ordered the inclusion of the citizenship question. It’s not clear whether President Donald Trump’s statements will count for this purpose. In the travel ban case, for example, the Supreme Court downplayed the significance of his comments on Muslims.
The Supreme Court has been skeptical of discrimination claims in the absence of smoking-gun evidence. There might be circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent, but it might not be powerful enough to prove the claim.
Beyond the discrimination claim, the plaintiffs argue that the citizenship question violates the constitutional requirement that the census be an “actual enumeration” of the population. By discouraging participation, they claim that the question will lead to an inaccurate count.
The lower courts have disagreed about whether the plaintiffs must prove discriminatory intent to win under the Enumeration Clause. Even if they don’t, the Constitution does not require a perfect count.
Almost every census between 1820 and 1950 asked about citizenship. But the plaintiffs point out that immigration was a less fraught issue for most of that time.
Asking about citizenship today has more troubling implications, they say, than in earlier times. This argument implies that the Constitution’s meaning can change, though it might be difficult to persuade a majority of the Supreme Court of that approach.
But the irregularities in Ross’s decision-making process might well have violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Agency decisions are supposed to be adopted through specified processes and based only on legally relevant information. This is where the Supreme Court most likely will focus its attention.
The lower courts concluded that Ross improperly ignored the advice of the Census Bureau’sprofessional staff and six former census directors who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. They warned that including the citizenship question in 2020 without adequate field testing would jeopardize the accuracy of the count and that other federal data were sufficient to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
The government counters that Ross reached a defensible conclusion, even if reasonable people might disagree, and that the Supreme Court should not second-guess him.
In the end, the decision will turn on whether the justices believe that these procedural irregularities mean that Ross lacked proper justification for ordering the inclusion of the citizenship question. That in turn might depend on how much the justices will defer to the executive branch.
Capital-Star Eastern Hellbender Bureau Chief Stephen Caruso has all you need to know about the state’s official amphibian getting his status enshrined into law.
Elizabeth Hardison kept tabs on a Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting in Pittsburgh on methane emissions (from natural gas wells, not the meeting. Stop snickering. We can hear you).
Sarah Anne Hughes has the details on Auditor General Eugene DePasquale’s call for more funding for mental health services to prevent future gun violence.
On the Opinion side of the house, Marc Stier of the Pennsylvania Budget & Policy Centermakes the case for a ‘Fair Share’ tax that he says will more equitably distribute the burden of funding government (Spoiler Alert: The rich pay more at the end … and the call is coming from inside the house).
The Inquirer explains why the state is taking in millions more in online sales tax collections than it thought it would.
Pennsylvania is ranked 15th in the top gambling-addicted states, PennLive reports.
The Morning Call profiles the company that’s bringing down Martin Tower in Bethlehem.
Here’s your #Philadelphia Instagram of the Day:
WHYY-FM on the growth of abuse in asset forfeiture across Pennsylvania.
The PA Post’s Ed Mahon examines the ongoing fallout from York’s 1969 race riots.
BillyPenn compares Temple’s ‘hood to Penn’s University City.
The Dalai Lama’s doctor is in the house in Pittsburgh, The Incline reports.
Two people have been charged in connection with an overdose death at Lancaster County Prison, LancasterOnline reports.
Veep Joe Biden could campaign in Pittsburgh as soon as Monday — assuming he actually declares his presidential candidacy this week. And we’re losing interest by the day. (via PoliticsPA)
Stateline explains how immigrants can be key to softening or stopping population loss in cities and towns across the country.
Team Trump is ‘descending’ on Pennsylvania as 2020 concerns grow, Politico reports.
Lawmakers are coming up with plans to fix Social Security, which could go broke by 2035, Roll Call reports.
What Goes On.
The House Democratic Policy Committee legs it to lovely Plymouth Meeting, Pa. for a 2 p.m. hearing at the headquarters of UFCW Local 1776 on “Why Unions Matter.” Given the venue, that shouldn’t take long to settle.
Fresh out of amphibians to snuggle, Gov. Tom Wolf holds the 2,547th and 2,548th events on his ongoing RestorePA Tour. At 10 a.m., he’ll talk broadband expansion at an event in State College. At 2 p.m., he’ll do the same thing at an event in Spring Mills, Pa. (Oddly, Neil Finnfrom Crowded House has been enlisted to play guitar here, too).
What Goes On (Nakedly Political Edition).
Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson, holds a 5:30 p.m. reception at the Embassy Suite by Hilton Pittsburgh-Downtown. Admission runs from a merely annoying $1,000 to a truly extortionate $25,000.
You Say It’s Your Birthday Dept.
Best wishes go out this morning to Lisa Scullin Rashid at the Hershey Trust, who celebrates today. Congrats and enjoy the day.
Here’s one from MGMT to get your Wednesday morning going, it’s ‘Time to Pretend.’
Wednesday’s Gratuitous Hockey Link.
Boston beat the ‘Leafs 5-1 on Tuesday. They’re off to the next round of the playoffs.
And now you’re up to date.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site.