Supreme Court rules AGAINST Trump over census citizenship question
The Supreme Court found Thursday that the Trump administration did not give an adequate reason for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, blocking the question for at least the time being.
The move is a surprise win for advocates who opposed the question's addition, arguing it will lead to an inaccurate population count. The administration had argued the question was needed to enforce the Voting Rights Act.
VERTISEMENT
The justices sent the issue back to the Commerce Department to provide another explanation.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's liberal wing in delivering the court's opinion.
Roberts wrote "that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the [Voting Rights Act]."
"Several points, considered together, reveal a significant mismatch between the decision [Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross] made and the rationale he provided."
Roberts pointed to evidence showing that Ross, whose department oversees the census, intended on including a citizenship question on the census "about a week into his tenure, but it contains no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement in connection with that project."
And he noted that the Justice Department didn't indicate any interest in the citizenship data until contacted by Commerce officials, and that the evidence "suggests that DOJ's interest was directed more to helping the Commerce Department than to securing the data."
"Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the secretary gave for his decision," Roberts wrote.
"In the Secretary’s telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency. Yet the materials before us indicate that Commerce went to great lengths to elicit the request from DOJ (or any other willing agency)," he continued. "And unlike a typical case in which an agency may have both stated and unstated reasons for a decision, here the VRA enforcement rationale—the sole stated reason—seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency’s priorities and decisionmaking process."
However, the chief justice said that the decision to add the citizenship question was not "substantively invalid."
"But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably," Roberts said. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/450641-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-census?__twitter_impression=true