Department of Commerce v. New York

Department of Commerce v. New York. The case involved a dispute between the United States Department of Commerce and the state of New York over the inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 United States Census. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and other civil rights organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), challenged the decision in court, arguing that it would lead to an undercount of immigrant communities and violate the Enumeration Clause of the United States Constitution. The case ultimately made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was heard alongside United States v. Alabama and Trump v. Hawaii.

Background

The United States Census Bureau, part of the United States Department of Commerce, is responsible for conducting the United States Census every ten years, as mandated by the United States Constitution and the Census Act. The Census Act requires the Census Bureau to collect data on the population, including information on age, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino origin, as well as other demographic characteristics. In 2018, the Commerce Department announced its intention to add a citizenship question to the 2020 United States Census, which would ask respondents whether they are United States citizens. The decision was met with opposition from Democratic lawmakers, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well as civil rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAAJ) also expressed concerns about the potential impact of the citizenship question on immigrant communities.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case on April 23, 2019, with Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco representing the United States Department of Commerce and Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representing the plaintiffs. The court issued its decision on June 27, 2019, with Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts writing the majority opinion. The court held that the Commerce Department's decision to add the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), as it had not provided sufficient reasoning for the decision. The court also noted that the Commerce Department had not followed the proper procedures for adding a new question to the census, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Census Act. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Neil Gorsuch, arguing that the court should have deferred to the Commerce Department's decision.

Legal Implications

The decision in the case has significant implications for the 2020 United States Census and the use of citizenship data in redistricting and other government activities. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the National Association of Counties (NACo) have expressed concerns about the potential impact of the decision on the accuracy of census data and the allocation of federal funding. The American Bar Association (ABA) and the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) have also weighed in on the issue, arguing that the decision highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in government decision-making. The Federal Statistical System and the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) have also been affected by the decision, as they rely on accurate census data to inform their work.

Reaction and Aftermath

The decision was met with praise from Democratic lawmakers, including Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, as well as civil rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and the Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAAJ) also welcomed the decision, arguing that it would help to protect the rights of immigrant communities. However, the decision was criticized by Republican lawmakers, including Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham, who argued that it would undermine the accuracy of census data and the integrity of the electoral process. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute have also expressed concerns about the potential impact of the decision on federal policy and the Constitution.

Case History

The case originated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it was heard by United States District Judge Jesse Furman. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the Commerce Department's decision to add the citizenship question was unlawful. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, and the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to hear the case. The Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco represented the United States Department of Commerce in the Supreme Court, while Dale Ho of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the plaintiffs. The case has been closely watched by Supreme Court observers, including SCOTUSblog and the National Law Journal, and has been the subject of extensive commentary and analysis by Constitutional law scholars, including Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky.