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.
That’s it.
Then the question is on the form.
The only issue now is time.
Agree. The Commerce Department just needs to dust off its rationale they’ve likely been working on (if they’re competent) that easily falls under “Rational Basis,” and that’s that.
Effectively, the question will not be on the 2020 Census.
With the rapid demographic changes, it's less likely it will be on the 2030 (or later) Census.
That’s what the courts want. They are a corrupt bunch who settled nothing. Yes you have the right as long as the reason is fully explained only leaves the obvious question. What does fully explained mean...well, to find that do something and wait another year for us to tell you. Corruption at work.
The media doesn’t know what it is talking about. The court said: “The question can be there, so long as the agency explains why it is including it.”
The court said that the self-imposed deadline by the government is not binding, and there is in fact enough time.
The headline of this thread is not ideal.
Yes he is. Robert’s is a disgrace to the high court. Just another Bush the younger questionable decision.
in order to have true representation of the populous, a verifiable number of citizens is needed.
Just print them as is and people who want to challenge it can take it to court. Play their game
I’ve been watching Fox for 30 minutes and they are straight up reporting that the citizenship question will not be included in the 2020 census pursuant to this unanimous ruling.
I’m confused. Fox News (Eddie Munster) said 9 to 0, the citizenship question cannot be added to the 2020 census, loss for Trump.
Right.
:(!
I wonder what would would happen if millions of citizens refused to comply with the census...
But in effect the Court blocked the question for 2020 on the specious argument that yes, it legal, but first a lower court must examine the REASON a lawful question was included.
NEVER done before.
Conservatives will regret Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as we regret Roberts.
The ONLY conservatives on that court are Thomas and Alitto.
Another step in the Mexican takeover of our nation
It MAYBE could be—but not until 2030.
FOX is full of morons. They haven’t read the opinion.
The court gutted all of the challenges that NY raised. The court held that the agency does have to explain why it wants the question, but the agency can do that.
Gives... to whom?
The form printing deadline is approaching.
And who decides what constitutes good...
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.