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.
I’m sure the Democrats will fight tooth and nail to keep the citizenship question off the census so that is a question that will go back to the courts no matter what reason the administration gives.
CSPAN reports SCOTUS votes 5-4 against ADDING citizenship question to census.
Hopefully, Roberts hasn’t completely screwed up again and that Wilbur Ross will be able to weigh in to satisfy whatever has to be done to allow this critical data in due time.
So now there will be a case on the explanation.
I see this ending up back before SCOTUS rather quickly... the District Court will find that anything Census says is entirely pretextual, and SCOTUS will have to address this one more time.
Roberts really made this way more complicated than it needed to be by trying to straddle the fence here.
“Judge Napolitano is a quack. Don’t believe ANYTHING he claims.”
I wish Fox would get rid of this clown, and send Shep with him.
Have you seen who's running the new company? Don't hold your breath while you wait.
Huh?
Fox reports the SC decision on the Census issue was unanimous.
The TV news is reporting that they sent the case back, effectively keeping the question from the census. I suppose it would be a win in time but whether the lower courts will rule in a timely manner for this upcoming census is debatable.
“The media doesn’t know what it is talking about. The court said: “The question can be there, so long as the agency explains why it is including it.”
THIS IS SO DISGUSTING. Census is for OUR AMERICAN Citizens, no one else. It’s not rocket science. The slimey left wants anyone in the world to be counted.
The SCOTUS seems to be “passing back to lower courts” most everything these days.
We are either a nation of laws or not. Given the even more slimey Dems in last night’s chaotic non-debate gathering, it’s free everything, come on in, world at large, we’ll pay for your every need. Welcome mat is out. And those evil rich people / corporations will pay.
KEEP THE FAITH folks. But keep up the good fight.
two things
Conservatives in Blue States should not fill out their census let our anger be heard.
Two, since this is about getting a handle on who is here legally, lets deport illegals so they don’t have to be counted and can’t vote or get on welfare.
Yep. Wish Fox would send Shep and Judge Nap on an all expenses paid vacation to the Dominican Republic.
Reading through the replies, I am of the view that for now the question can stay on the form.
WTF!! Fox says it’s no good for the 2020 census. Roberts is coming into his own as another Earl ‘\Warren.
2010 census forms have to be printed soon.
SC is done for this session, i.e: NO question re citizenship on the 2010 form.
Big loss for U.S.!
Then the states in which they lived, would be (potentially) allocated fewer House of Rep seats.
For example, if most of the roughly 4.75 million (R) registered voters in CA [1] did not participate in the Census, CA probably would loose a seat or two. Unless, of course, a near equal number of illegal aliens were counted.
If the citizenship question does not make it to the 2020 Census due to timing, then this might very well have to be a movement in the blue states that (R)'s need to undertake.
It is NOT NOW on the Census form!
I thought another article said they ruled against it, because they did not give adequate justification.
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Trump’s census citizenship question, for now
The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant defeat on Thursday, ruling that his administration did not give an adequate explanation for its plan to include a contentious citizenship question on the 2020 census and preventing its addition to the decennial survey for now.
OOPS. Make that 2020 Census form.
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.