The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Trial on Census citizenship question to move forward
Court won’t grant delay sought by Trump, advocates.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Friday to delay an upcoming trial in which a number of states and civil rights organi- zations allege that there was an improper political motive in Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
The trial is scheduled for next week in New York. Justices Clarence Thomas, Sam- uel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch would have granted the Trump administration’s request to delay the trial.
The administration has been to the high court several times in an attempt to keep the challengers from questioning Ross and other administration officials about their motivations in adding the question.
Democratic lawmakers and immigrant rights groups have blasted the idea of adding the citizenship question. They contend that it will make immigrants and their fami- lies less likely to fill out the form, leading to a more costly and less accurate census.
Six former census directors and a Census Bureau internal analyst also have said that the question would harm the count. That, in turn, could cost states with large immigrant populations representation in Congress and federal funds distributed on the basis of population.
The question was asked in the past, but it has been decades since it was part of the routine decennial Census questioning. The admin- istration has said that any challenge to the Commerce Department action should be based on the administrative record, not probes of how top government officials decided it should be added.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the court that Ross had explained his actions and said that it was improper for courts to authorize “an intrusive fish- ing expedition involving the depositions of high-ranking government officials, including a cabinet Secretary.”
In an unsigned opinion Oct. 22, the Supreme Court blocked a deposition of Ross authorized by lower federal courts in New York. But it said other discovery could go forward, including the deposition of a top Justice Department official.
There are six legal challenges to the inclusion of a question about a Census respondent’s citizenship.
The states and organizations that brought the lawsuits say probing the intentions of officials is crucial. Ross has “offered shifting and inaccurate explanations in his decisional memo and in testimony before Congress”, said a brief filed by the New York Immigration Coalition, the American Civil Liberties Union and others.
Ross first said he added the citizenship question at the behest of the Justice Department, which said it was needed to help enforce voting rights.
But emails showed that he had been pushing for the inclusion of the citizenship question earlier than that, and the groups and states contend that the Justice Department request was a pretext.
In a document filed in response to questions sent by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, D, Ross acknowledged that he had discussed the issue with former White House adviser Stephen Bannon and a Republican secretary of state who has been a leader in anti-immigration efforts.
In the document, Ross said he recalled Bannon calling him in spring 2017 to ask whether Ross would speak to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach about ideas for a possible citizenship ques- tion on the census.
That appears to contra- dict Ross’ testimony to Congress. When asked at a hear- ing March 20 by Rep. Grace Meng, D-N.Y., whether the president or anyone in the White House had discussed the citizenship question with him, Ross said, “I am not aware of any such.”
The trial is scheduled to start next week before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman. He has denied the Trump administration’s motions for delay.
In asking the Supreme Court for a delay, Francisco said “the most efficient path forward is to stay the trial and resolve the question whether the district court must confine its review of the Secretary’s decision to the administrative record, while leaving time for the district court to conduct its review followed by prompt appellate review.”