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.
Roberts is not incompetent. He’s corrupt.
I’m so PO’d...If the question’s not on there I hope tens of millions of citizens refuse to comply. I will be one of them.
I applaud fake news that taints SCOTUS.
OK so say for the sake of argument the Democrats launch a nationwide campaign calling for people to answer every question on the census form but leave the citizenship question unanswered. What does that do to the count? Does the entire form get thrown out for lack of that answer? Or does it go through and the individuals get counted?
Or, if you feel you must fill it out, fill it out, shred it, and send in the shreds.
Fedzilla can embrace the suck.
The court DIDN’T block anything. The case was remanded. The media doesn’t know what it is talking about.
The agency is wrong that July 1 is a deadline. The court noted that. It can present its rationale to the lower court, the lower court has to review the rationale in light of the holding in Commerce, and the agency can print the forms. It might be January 1, but it can do it, if the Secretary of Commerce says to the agency, we are going forward with this, the question will be on the form.
There is no deadline.
This is a convoluted rationale. It doesn’t divide the baby. It strangles the baby.
What the heck did Roberts just say?
Simple question: Does it make sense to have a citizenship question on a census questionaire? Answer: Of course it does.
If a non-citizen answers truthfully that they are a non-citizen, then they need not fear filling out a census form. There are some legitimate reasons for a non-citizen to be temporarily living in the USA: education and business, primarily.
If they aren’t in the US legally, and they’re afraid to fill out a census, then then they win the prize!
Yep. Just craft a plausible explanation - which they can easily do - and the citizenship question is on the Census.
This is a win for the good guys.
They would have their representation further diluted by people who are profiting from their crimes.
That’s right, the Court did not block the question. It just stated that the agency has to be transparent about why the question is on the form.
My question is if the District Court says that the justification is not well-grounded, will the Supreme Court step in and adjudicate the issue in time for the census?
Yes. Notice that Fox already changed their reporting on this, 3 minutes ago:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-blocks-citizenship-question-in-2020-census-for-now
They added the “for now.”
If you read the OPINION, the “for now” is very temporary.
CNN also.
I really wish I knew what NYS stood for?
The court already rejected the crap that NY was peddling in the challenge, so the lower court has to accept the justification under the lens in the opinion.
>>>Don’t you just get turned on by ‘lawyer talk’? /sarc<<<
Unlike rape, ‘lawyer talk’ is really quite sexy when it agrees with my position.
I guess the question, how many people live in your Household should be replaced with how many Burglars, Trespassers and Squatters live in your Household.
Bill Clinton Bill Clinton is working on that definition of "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.