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.
The explanation should be fairly apparent: after all, why do they ask about ages? Genders? Names? None of these are constitutionally mandated, yet they’re on the form.
The answer is that it’s useful information to help federal, state, and local governments have a better handle on the number of people that need their servies. Accurate Demographics further that mission.
Citizenship questions should go even further since it’s demonstrably obvious that non-citizens will need more government services.
Okay, that’s the proper answer... the real answer is that non-citizens aren’t supposed to vote and we want to base Congressional representation on an accurate accounting of those whom they are charged to serve.
Roberts was appointed by GWB.
(1)(a) will get the ruling we need in the lower court in a timely fashion or
(1)(b) will get a positive ruling back from this Scotus in a timely fashion when the lower court rejects the new explanation
and
(2) the fed gov then has enough time to print before the census goes out.
I hope your positive outlook comes to fruition...we shall see.
Roberts was appointed by GWB.
The principle is the same. These judges are not reliably conservative. How did Trump’s MAGA Fed picks do in a controlled GOP Senate?
Printing the forms is not that hard, there are a good number of companies that can print Tax Forms and the like. One of them is near Roanoke, Va and they are pretty low-tech.
They’ll still either answer yes or just won’t bother to answer the door.
Even if the explanation is not reasonable by fluid estimates, that should be irrelevant. It’s the purview of this branch of government to craft the census.
What the hell is Roberts doing now giving SCOTUS some right to negate our laws and processes if he is somehow not convinced of the motive of the bureaucrats answering to him?
He won’t be, but should be, impeached.
By the constitution, they do.
The problem is, there is evidence in the record that the department coerced the DOJ into sending the letter asking for it, and the department was already putting the question in place before the DOJ letter.
The court actually said that is fine, that it is reasonable that a new administration might have things they want to do, but that pretending they only did it because of the DOJ letter was a joke.
He managed to take a case where there were 5 votes to stop it, and make a unanimous decision that tells the lower court that if the “reason given” is “We thought that knowing how many people were in a state illegally might be a useful piece of information to advance our policy agenda with the american people” — that is a good reason, and cannot be rejected.
Meanwhile, they also said that the lower court can’t use any of the other arguments, they can only rule on whether there is a rational basis for asking the question. If the administration can’t put THAT together, they deserve to lose.
Oh. Then there wouldn’t be much point in the citizenship question, I guess?
We can't understand the wisdom of federal judges, because we lack the ability to read minds.
Smile...
This was NOT a unanimous decision. It was only unanimous on the first two parts. The rest split into the usual divisions, some with Roberts siding with the conservatives, some with the libs, and importantly the conservatives did NOT join Roberts little game and would have given the administration a total win.
Bingo.
You can’t possibly agree with him calling it unanimous.
There is of course no bad faith or improper behavior to simply restoring this commonsense question to the census.
Well, only parts 1-2 were unanimous, everything else was 5-4.
5-4 on 3, 4-B and 4-C. 6-3 on 4-A and 5-4 on part 5.
The rest of what he said was true. The standard that the court set will be tough for even an Obama Judge to get around.
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.