Department of Commerce v. New York
139 S. Ct. 2551
| SCOTUS | 2019Background
- In March 2018 Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census at DOJ’s request, citing a need for better citizen voting‑age population data for Voting Rights Act (VRA) enforcement.
- The Census Bureau warned the question would likely suppress response rates among noncitizen and Hispanic households and predicted degraded overall enumeration quality; it recommended using administrative records and modeling instead.
- Two consolidated lawsuits alleged the inclusion violated the Enumeration Clause, the Census Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and (in one suit) the Equal Protection Clause. The district court found the decision arbitrary and capricious, violative of the Census Act, and pretextual as to the VRA rationale; it enjoined the question.
- The Government sought and obtained Supreme Court review; the Court considered standing, constitutional limits, APA reviewability, statutory compliance (§6(c), §141(f)), and whether the Secretary’s stated VRA rationale was pretextual.
- The Supreme Court: (1) held some plaintiffs had Article III standing; (2) rejected an Enumeration Clause barrier to the question; (3) held the Secretary’s decision was reviewable under the APA and not per se outside judicial scrutiny; (4) found certain statutory claims (as‑applied) not to mandate vacatur, but (5) affirmed the district court’s remand because the VRA rationale was pretextual under the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Under‑counts from a citizenship question will foreseeably cause loss of federal funds and representation; that is concrete and traceable | Any alleged injury depends on independent third‑party refusal to respond and thus is speculative | Some respondents have standing: predictable third‑party reactions and record evidence suffice for traceability and imminence |
| Enumeration Clause | Census must be limited to headcount; demographic questions unrelated to "actual Enumeration" are unconstitutional | Historical practice and congressional delegation permit demographic questions, including citizenship | Enumeration Clause does not forbid citizenship question; longstanding practice and statutory delegation allow demographic inquiries |
| APA reviewability (§701 exception) | Secretary’s form/content discretion is reviewable; statute contains constraints and standards for judicial review | Census Act commits question‑selection to unreviewable agency discretion (broad "form and content" language) | Decision is reviewable; §701(a)(2) read narrowly and statute supplies meaningful standards (and courts have reviewed census decisions historically) |
| Arbitrary & capricious / statutory compliance (§6(c), §141(f)) | Secretary ignored Bureau expertise; violated §6(c) (use administrative records "to the maximum extent possible") and §141(f) reporting rules; failed reasoned decisionmaking | Secretary weighed tradeoffs, relied on record, and legitimately preferred completeness and DOJ’s request; any reporting technicality was harmless | Ordinary APA review defers to Secretary’s reasoned balancing on most points; Secretary adequately explained §141(f) reporting; §6(c) complied in agency’s judgment; but |
| Pretext / remand | The VRA rationale was contrived; record shows Secretary pursued question before DOJ request and solicited DOJ’s letter — bad faith pretext | It is normal for officials to have policy preferences and to solicit interagency support; stated rationale was plausible | On the full (including extra‑record) trial record the VRA rationale was pretextual; remand to agency for a genuine explanation is warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) (census decisions judged by whether they bear a reasonable relationship to the actual enumeration)
- Baldrige v. Shapiro, 455 U.S. 345 (1982) (census collects demographic data used for many governmental purposes)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard: agency must examine relevant data and offer a rational connection between facts and choice)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (strong showing of bad faith required to probe agency mental processes and permit extra‑record discovery)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) (certain enforcement and discretion decisions traditionally committed to agency discretion)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (statutes that "exude deference" may preclude judicial review)
- Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) (statutory limits inform scope of Secretary's census authority)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) (review of census‑related decisions in apportionment context)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (review ordinarily confined to the administrative record)
- Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156 (1962) (agency must disclose basis of action for meaningful judicial review)
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) (courts review the grounds the agency actually invoked)