Judge nixes U.S. request to halt trial on census

A federal judge on Tuesday denied an attempt by President Donald Trump’s administration to halt a trial underway over a census citizenship question. In his ruling, Judge Jesse Furman of Manhattan’s Southern District blasted the government’s “latest and strangest effort,” noting the defendants “have tried and failed repeatedly to halt the orderly progress of this litigation.” A day earlier, the government had sought an emergency stay from an appeals court before waiting for Furman’s ruling. That request was denied Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which called it “premature,” since Furman had not yet ruled. Now that he has, the appeals court will automatically consider the government’s request. Closing arguments in the trial are scheduled for Tuesday. The trial is one of several contesting the government’s March decision to ask respondents to the 2020 census if they are U.S. citizens, with the rationale that it is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act. But opponents see it as a partisan move that will depress response rates in Democratic-majority jurisdictions with a high portion of immigrants. They say the question, which has not undergone the rigorous testing generally done when adding new material to the forms, could scare immigrants from completing the form. The government has tried multiple times to stop or delay the trial. In the latest request, it argued that because the Supreme Court said last week that it will hear arguments over whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross can be questioned about his decision to add the question, the trial should be halted until that ruling, expected in February. Furman and the appeals court had ruled that Ross could be deposed, but the Supreme Court had temporarily halted his questioning. New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, who is leading the plaintiffs in the New York case, said she believes she can win the case even without Ross’ testimony, based on documents already filed in the case. In his ruling, Furman characterized the government’s efforts as a Sisyphean task, noting that “they sought and were denied virtually the same relief only weeks ago — from this Court, from the Second Circuit, and from the Supreme Court itself,” and saying it was “hard to see the point” of its litigation strategy. The Justice Department declined to comment on its request or whether it would seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court. In its request to the Second Circuit, the government had written: “Although this Court and the Supreme Court previously denied the government’s request to stay district court proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of the government’s then-pending petition … the Supreme Court’s decision to grant the petition is a significant change in circumstances that merits revisiting the question whether a stay is justified.” The government quoted Justice Neil Gorsuch noting that when the Supreme Court announces it will review a given case, lower courts should “normally” stay proceedings and “await further guidance.” In his ruling, Furman disagreed that the Supreme Court’s decision represented a significant change.