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.
Thanks for the translations from legalese!
But why is time an issue?
Yes and no.
In rulings that favor the Government, the Court holds: (1) the Enumeration clause permits a citizenship question; (2) the Secretary’s decision is reviewable under the APA; (3) adding the citizenship question was supported by substantial evidence; (4) adding the question did not violate the two provisions of the Census Act New York has cited.
BUT
The agency has to explain WHY it did it under the APA.
In a nutshell, the Court is saying that the Commerce Department could do this if it gave a better explanation of why it was doing it. That’s the bottom line.
What about "Are you a US citizen" as a good reason???
Roberts has proven to be one of the most incompetent "justices" in Supreme Court history.
Are he and Jeff Sessions joined at the hip or something?
Administrative agency decisions take time. There is a public comment period. If they have been planing for a result like this, it won’t be an issue.
........... I heard the opposite .... that the Citizenship Question .... WILL NOT be on the 2020 Census .....
It can be on the ballot if Trump decides to leave it. Ballots will be printed with the question starting 1 July. The court decided nothing.
Roberts is not incompetent.
He’s corrupt.
So, what does that mean for the 2020 census?
Given they don’t like the explanation, are they letting it stay or saying no?
I am seeing both sides claiming victory here.
Also the dems sent in new evidence to the SCOTUS, which they don’t normally consider. The dems plot worked.
"Let's kill all the lawyers" is a line from William Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The full quote is "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
Thanks!
Well, if the question ain’t on there, I’m refusing to respond.
NYS can KMA.
Like I said, idiot reporters can’t read the opinion, can’t understand the law, and desperately want to spin this as a victory for the Rats.
However, the actual opinion guts the challenges that NY made to the law.
The court DID send this back to the agency to explain why it did it.
All the agency has to do is explain why it did this, present it to the lower courts. The lower courts have to review it with the standards that the court put in place, and it guts the challengers position.
Basically, Agencies aren’t allowed to pull the same sort of intellectual dishonesty the courts use on a routine basis. “Stay in your own lane.”
The court didn’t address that at all.
Census forms are reportedly going to start being printed on July 1. That doesn’t seem enough time for the agency to get their act together. I don’t the question will be on the 2020 census.
I guess the second one doesn’t really favor the Government
I meant to say I don’t think the question will be on the 2020 census.
Another source for info:
www.SCOTUSblog.com
All the agency has to do is explain why it did this, and present it to the lower courts. The lower courts have to review it with the standards that the court put in place, and it guts the challengers position.
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.