
Department of Commerce v. New York
Merit Brief
Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review a case “on the merits,” each party files merits briefs. The merits briefs argue to the Court why each party should win the case. The Petitioner files the opening brief; the Respondent files a response; and the Petitioner files a Reply Brief.
What's at Stake
Whether the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question to the Census was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law.
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Summary
The ACLU represented a coalition of civil rights groups, including the New York Immigration Coalition (“NYIC”), in a challenge to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, which the department claimed was for the purpose of facilitating enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The suit alleged that the citizenship question would cause noncitizen households not to respond to the census, leading to an undercounting, and ultimately, underrepresentation, of communities of color. The suit alleged constitutional violations under the Enumeration Clause and the Equal Protection Clause as well as violations of the Census Act and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA creates a process by which courts can review a government agency’s justifications for taking an action and strike down the action if the decision is found to be arbitrary or capricious.
The district court found for the NYIC coalition, holding that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross violated the APA by acting in a manner that was arbitrary and in spite of overwhelming evidence that the question would cause undercounting of immigrant communities. The court found that the Secretary “failed to consider several important aspects of the problem; alternately ignored, cherry-picked, or badly misconstrued the evidence in the record before him; acted irrationally both in light of that evidence and his own stated decisional criteria; and failed to justify significant departures from past policies and practices.” The court also found substantial evidence that the reasons given for the decision to include the census question were pretextual, and suggested that discriminatory intent may have been found if the plaintiffs had been permitted to gather additional evidence. Because of the mismatch between the Secretary’s stated reasons for adding a citizenship question to the census and the actual evidence on the record, the district court found the ruling to be arbitrary and capicious and vacated it under the APA.
The Trump Administration appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s holding in a June 2019 decision. Then-Voting Rights Project Director Dale Ho argued on behalf of the civil-rights group plaintiffs at the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s finding that the Secretary violated the Census Act, but upheld the ruling that the Secretary violated the APA by providing pretextual justification for the decision. The Court concluded that the Secretary provided a sole reason for including the citizenship question—facilitating enforcement of the Voting Rights Act—yet the record showed that the Voting Rights Act played almost no part in the discussions surrounding the decision and was merely a “distraction.” The Court found that the APA required the Secretary to provide a full and honest account of the justifications for its decision, and that his failure to do so justified the district court’s ruling vacating the Secretary’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census.
The Justice Department and Secretary Ross initially announced that they would abandon the citizenship question and begin to print census forms without it, but President Trump later announced a decision to reverse course and pursue a renewed effort to include the question. In late July, the Trump administration finally abandoned plans to include the citizenship question on the census, a significant victory for voting rights advocates.
Legal Documents
- 05/21/2020
Opinion and Order - 03/13/2020
Defendants’ Letter - 12/27/2019
Letter re: Defendants’ Statement of Position in Response to the Court’s Order of December 20, 2019 - 12/27/2019
Plaintiffs’ Statement of Position Regarding Defendants’ Discovery of Unproduced Materials - 07/16/2019
NYIC Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions - 07/16/2019
Order - 07/08/2019
Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Counsel - 07/03/2019
Letter - 07/03/2019
Transcript - 07/03/2019
Notice - 06/05/2019
Scheduling Order - 05/31/2019
Defendants’ Notice of Non-Objection re: Letter Motion for Leave to File Redacted Motion and Exhibit - 05/30/2019
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Order to Show Cause - 01/15/2019
Final Judgment - 01/15/2019
Opinion - 12/04/2018
Defendants’ Post Trial Reply - 12/04/2018
Plaintiffs’ Post Trial Reply - 11/21/2018
Defendants’ Post-Trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Plaintiffs’ Claims - 11/17/2018
Plaintiffs’ Updated Exhibit List - 11/16/2018
Order - 10/31/2018
Defendants’ Pretrial Reply Memorandum - 10/31/2018
Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Reply Memorandum - 10/26/2018
Defendants’ Pretrial Memorandum - 10/26/2018
Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Memorandum - 10/26/2018
Order Denying Motion to Stay Trial - 10/24/2018
Order - 10/02/2018
Order Denying Stay of Discovery - 09/17/2018
Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion re: Discovery and Depose Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross - 09/10/2018
Plaintiffs’ Letter Motion re: Discovery and Depose Non-Party Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross - 08/17/2018
Order re: Letter Motion to Compel - 08/13/2018
Plaintiffs’ Fourth Letter re: Discovery - 07/26/2018
Opinion and Order re: Motion to Dismiss - 07/25/2018
Second Amended Complaint - 07/09/2018
New York Immigration Coalition Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 04/30/2018
First Amended Complaint
Date Filed: 05/31/2019
Court: District Court (S.D.N.Y.)
Download DocumentPress Releases
Federal Court Grants Sanctions Against Trump Administration Stemming From Census Citizenship Lawsuit
ACLU Comment on Trump Giving Up Census Fight
ACLU Comment on Possible Trump Census Executive Action
ACLU Comment on Trump Census Lawyer Swap Ruling
ACLU Asks Federal Court to Block Trump’s Ongoing Bid to Add Census Citizenship Question
ACLU Comment on Trump Threat to Reverse Course on Census