I have no right to expect you to be my instructor in things pertaining to SCOTUS decisions. However, I find your “answer” (#138) to my question (#135) severly lacking.
No offense intended, just an observation.
The case is remanded (sent back) to the District Court. The agency, following the administrative procedures act, must submit an explanation as to why they want to include the census question. The “we need it to help enforce the VRA” answer that they used isn’t clear enough. (The court hints that might even be pre-textual, as in it wasn’t the real reason the agency wanted the question.)
The agency can come up with a better explanation. They take that to the District Court. The District Court then reviews it, and makes sure that it wasn’t “arbitrary and capricious.” In other words, that they were just making up a reason.
From there, it can be appealed.
HOWEVER, the Court already rejected all of the challengers reasons for fighting the Census question.
So all the agency has to do is come up with something better. What, I don’t know precisely. Perhaps something along the lines of wanting to know how illegal immigration impacts services.
Regardless, the District Court has been told: “a court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities.”
I presume that Commerce, if it wants, can get back in front of the District Court by August. Any appeal could be expedited to the beginning of October if necessary.
The Census Bureau has already said they can meet a 10/31 deadline.