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.
The better reason is that the United States is going to issue identity numbers for every person in the United States, that citizens will get a citizenship card allowing them to vote in all subsequent elections; non-citizens will be given an identity card to reflect their status in these United States and anyone determined to be taking US taxpayer funded benefits will be shown the door.
Thank you for your courtesy, time and effort.
I appreciate it.
How could an “expedited appeal” to the SC Court be ruled upon before the 2020 forms are printed, since there is—reportedly—a printing deadline of July 1, 2019?