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.
“Bottom line: If it’s NOT on there, conservatives in blue states should refuse to fill it out.”
Conservatives in blue states should avoid any contact with any element of the census.
In any and all cases.
In the red states, go out of your way to comply.
Fox already changed it’s internet reporting on this. They added a “for now.” The breathless brain-dead teleprompter readers on the screen couldn’t have read the opinion, and the opinion is complex.
The court systematically rejected all of the NY challenges to the form, and expressly ruled that a citizenship question is Constitutional.
The only reason its more complicated than it needs to be, is that the agency needs to provide a clearer explanation of why it wanted the question.
That’s it.
Census has already said they can meet a 10/31 deadline. The July 1 deadline was arbitrary, and the court said that it wasn’t binding.
10/31 is enough time, if the agency pushes.
That should be a rather simple exercise.
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...
Wishful thinking. Roberts is all the proof you need that “Trump Judges” are not going to turn this Deep State controlled ship around.
Notice how all of the outlets are now adding the “for now” to their initial reporting.
That “for now” is temporary.
The agency simply gives a clearer explanation, and the forms are printed in October rather than July.
"Sorry I had to deny your loan application because you filled it out wrong. But I looked at your information and I'll approve it as soon as you refile a new application."
“WTF!! Fox says it’s no good for the 2020 census.”
Fox is just trying to cement its place in the fake news hall of fame.
Conservatives will regret Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as we regret Roberts.
The ONLY conservatives on that court are Thomas and Alitto.
That’s pretty much where I am at, unfortunately. These Justices are no better than the useless US Senators who confirm them. I suppose that is not a coincidence.
It’s misleading to say that the question “stays” in this scenario when more is required. While the MSM has done a bad job with reporting on this case, the headline of this thread sucks.
Let's take a little stroll down Memory Lane regarding the Census Bureau and "meaningful" decision-making.
Does anybody remember when President Obama nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to be the Secretary of Commerce?
The Senate was 58-41 Democrat, with one vacancy (Franken/Coleman dispute). Suspicious political junkies immediately realized that New Hampshire had a Democrat governor, and nominating Gregg to Commerce would allow the governor to replace him with a Democrat to give the Democrats a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority when Franken is seated.
Gregg demanded assurances from the Governor of New Hampshire that he would be replaced by his chief-of-staff, but we all know how good the word of a Democrat is, especially with control of the Senate at stake.
The lure for Gregg was the census, until Obama misplayed his hand by announcing that he was moving the Census Bureau from its longstanding home at Commerce to now being run directly from the Oval Office. Upon that news, Gregg withdrew his name from consideration and stayed in the Senate.
It's clear that Obama wanted direct control of the mechanics of the census by his desire to take over. Was this a decision that the Supreme Court would have considered to require more explanation?
-PJ
Has the form even been printed? Is it ready for mailing?
“Relatedly, a court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.”will make it VERY hard for the lower court to deny Commerce's explanation. It looks like it directly targets Maryland Judge Hazel's argument.
Let the ICE sweep begin. start in the the cities and states with the highest known concentrations of illegals, especially “Sanctuary cities”.
Just ensure there are no illegals to count and the citizenship question becomes unnecessary.
“Just print them as is and people who want to challenge it can take it to court. Play their game”
... and by the time all that takes place Trump’s admin will have sent in the rationale.
WHO determines the validity of this "clearer explanation" and WHEN will this determination be made?
I’m sure that President Trump has a response and action plan prepared for this eventuality. We should be hearing it shortly.
Thank You so much for your input.
Judge Napolitano is such a complete buffoon. He never gets ANYTHING right.
Anyone know how that other moron, Cnn’s Toobin, was reporting this.
It can all be done by October, but the agency will need to hustle.
Importantly, the lower court needs to remember:
“A court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.”
The census counts citizens. It has no reason to count those who are just passing through as citizens. But it needs to ask everyone it meets if he/she is a citizen so that it can count citizens.
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.