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’ve done lots of family research from 1880 to 1920 and that included seeing lots of Census Records.The Census records I saw from that era all had a question about place of birth (many of the people I researched were born in Europe) and also had a question about citizenship (Ireland was often the answer for my family members).
If the Census Bureau can ask me how much I make they can ask me if I’m a citizen.
GEEZ, reading the opinion, the SC is concerned about the ‘BEHAVIOR, of the agency.
Is that anything like “penumbras?”
Well, if the question ain’t on there, I’m refusing to respond.
...........................................
If a large number of those who object to the absence of the question refuse to complete the Census I think that could conceivably have a negative effect on red State representation in the HOR.
I don’t believe visitors are supposed to count; if you are here on a temporary Visa, you are not considered “living here”.
But at this time, there is no way to “not count” people who are actually living in the country, even if they are not here legally.
We could do a sweep and deport them before the census starts. But frankly, Trump has no real interest in deporting most of the illegals; he has targets of interest, but if he could get a wall, he’d probably let most of the settled down ones stay.
ANd if they are living here, they are using resources, and therefore need to be taken into account.
Remember, the 3/5ths compromise was basically saying that a slave, who was not considered a citizen, counted for 3/5ths of a person in the census, both for taxes due from the states, and for apportionment in congress.
Charles, I do not believe that the Founders supported anarchy, which is what we now have. NO WAY would any of them consider legal or illegal visitors as part of the count. Common sense should rule here.
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.