Posted on 06/27/2019 7:38:42 AM PDT by TexasGurl24
. The Enumeration Clause permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire. That conclusion follows from Congress’s broad authority over the census, as informed by long and consistent historical practice that “has been open, widespread, and unchallenged since the early days of the Republic.” NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 572 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Pp. 11–13.
BUT:
. In order to permit meaningful judicial review, an agency must “‘disclose the basis’” of its action. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U. S. 156, 167–169. A court is ordinarily limited to evaluating the agency’s contemporaneous explanation in light of the existing administrative record, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519, but it may inquire into “the mental processes of administrative decisionmakers” upon a “strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior,” Overton Park, 401 U. S., at 420. While the District Court prematurely invoked that exception in ordering extra-record discovery here, it was ultimately justified in light of the expanded administrative record. Accordingly, the District Court’s ruling on pretext will be reviewed in light of all the evidence in the record, including the extrarecord discovery. 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. Yet viewing the evidence as a whole, this Court shares the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot adequately be explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship Cite as: 588 U. S. ____ (2019) 5 Syllabus data to better enforce the VRA. Several points, taken together, reveal a significant mismatch between the Secretary’s decision and the rationale he provided. The record shows that he began taking steps to reinstate the question a week into his tenure, but gives no hint that he was considering VRA enforcement. His director of policy attempted to elicit requests for citizenship data from the Department of Homeland Security and DOJ’s Office of Immigration Review before turning to the VRA rationale and DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. For its part, DOJ’s actions suggest that it was more interested in helping the Commerce Department than in securing the data. Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision. 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. The reasoned explanation requirement of administrative law is meant to ensure that agencies offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public. The explanation provided here was more of a distraction. In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency.
Roberts wrote an incredibly complex opinion where he is desperately trying to straddle the fence. The end result here, is that if the agency gives a good reason for the Census question then it stays.
“We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
Explanation: Illegals don’t count when it comes to calculating the number of Congresscritters to come from a locale.
Don’t you just get turned on by ‘lawyer talk’? /sarc
The Court says that the secretary’s decision to reinstate the citizenship question was reasonable and reasonably explained, “particularly in light of the long history of the citizenship question on the census,” but on the other hand it says that it shares “the District Court’s conviction 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. “In these unusual circumstances,” the court says, “the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition.”
Actually, the question is one of the main reasons for the census...
If the question is added, what is the punishment for lying on the census report????
WTBleep?! Who/what decides a good reason?!
Which district court was this?
I can’t wait until Trump’s second term when (short of an unexpected departure) at least one more left wing justice will retire. 5-4 is nice 6 to 3 or 7-2 is much better...
FNC is reporting that SCOTUS is blocking the citizenship question on 2020 census.
Bottom line: If it’s NOT on there, conservatives in blue states should refuse to fill it out.
The media is going to spin this as “No Census question in 2020” that’s NOT what the court did here. In fact, Robert’s opinion largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency’s power to include a citizenship question.
Any remand will be a mere temporary, and limited, “victory.” The media is going to spin it that way, but it is bull. The only thing the agency needs to do is further clarify why it wants the question.
That’s it.
Then the question is on the form.
The only issue now is time.
That guy is a slimy slippery snake. Another gift from the Bush Crime Family.
Unlike the partisan gerrymandering case, this opinion is complicated. In a rush to be first, this is the best one gets. Wait a few minutes for the full analysis.
The media is going to spin this as “No Census question in 2020” that’s NOT what the court did here. In fact, Robert’s opinion largely rejects the substantive objections New York raised regarding the agency’s power to include a citizenship question.
Any remand will be a mere temporary, and limited, “victory.” The media is going to spin it that way, but it is bull. The only thing the agency needs to do is further clarify why it wants the question.
That’s it.
Then the question is on the form.
The only issue now is time.
So did the good guys win?
news has the question is blocked,
where did you that headline ruling?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.