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 hear that. It’s just this unanimous idea has been posted many times on here and it seems like it originated with early reports on FOX News and is now spreading all over the place. Whatever the merits of his position or the eventual outcome of the census question, this wasn’t some genius move by Roberts that brought all the justices together.
The census counts people, not citizens.
And what difference does it make whether they lie or not? The question is NOT used to decide whether or not to count someone, every human being gets counted.
Congressional representation is based on the number of people, not citizens. You’d need a constitutional amendment to change that.
I agree with your reading of it but would suggest it need only be a noncontradictory and nonpretextual reason; e.g., "I have determined that a citizenship question is in the country's best interest."
Roberts is absolutely the new median Justice and has taken the place of Kennedy there. We really need Breyer or Ginsburg to be replaced.
And/or he’s been compromised. I think someone somewhere has dirt on him.
As usual, a precise and enlightening selection of opinions from Constitutional history.
Thank you. I always read your posts for their information.
That is madness. Common sense must be applied here, w/o an amendment. You can’t be a visitor or an intruder, and count!
<> Non-citizens Have Large Impact On Congressional Apportionment <>
Immigration has a significant effect on the distribution of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for three reasons.
First, seats are apportioned based on each state’s total population relative to the rest of the country, including illegal aliens and other non-citizens.
Second, congress has chosen to allow in a large number of legal immigrants and to tolerate wide spread illegal immigration. After the 2000 Census, the average congressional district had roughly 650,000 people. Thus, the more than 18 million non-citizens in the 2000 Census were equal to nearly 29 congressional seats.
The third reason is that non-citizens are not evenly distributed throughout the country. In 2000, half of all non-citizens lived in just three states and almost 70 percent live in just six states. States with a large non-citizen population will gain at the expense of states comprised mostly of citizens.
Roberts determined the census question is a tax.
“The end result here, is that if the agency gives a good reason for the Census question then it stays.”
I’ll take “Because we are supposed to provide for the General Welfare of AMERICANS” for 20 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Do we have to start a prayer circle for Roberts to stroke out?
Yes, in upholding O-care Roberts didn't seem to care what the motive of the executive branch people was. In the census case Roberts was very picky about what Trump people said. Looks like when he wants a result, consistency goes out the window.
Trump should do an Exec Order that if the citizenship question isn’t answered, the presumption is NOT a citizen.
Plus big notices of big fines for lying.
I don't think that would be a smart move. That would be encouraging them to act contrary to federal law.
What is there to explain?
+
Then what?
Plus big notices of big fines for lying.
If you don't answer the question then you're not lying. The law specifies a $100 fine for not filling out your form.
When push comes to shove, I'll put "natural born US citizen" in the question about ethnic origin. You should, too.
“Trump should do an Exec Order that if the citizenship question isn’t answered, the presumption is NOT a citizen.”
>Then what?<
that state loses representation since the count is based on CITIZENS.
“Plus big notices of big fines for lying.”
>If you don’t answer the question then you’re not lying. The law specifies a $100 fine for not filling out your form.<
I meant if they lie and say they ARE a citizen when they are not. Should add “immediate deportation” for any on citizen claiming citizenship on the census, attempting to vote, etc...
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.