345 F. Supp. 3d 444
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs challenge Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause (equal protection component).
- On July 3, 2018 the district court found a strong preliminary showing of pretext/bad faith and authorized limited extra-record discovery (including potential depositions). Defendants did not move for summary judgment and trial was scheduled for Nov. 5, 2018.
- Defendants sought a stay of trial and related deadlines pending a petition to the Supreme Court for writs of mandamus and certiorari after the Supreme Court denied an emergency stay of certain district-court orders (Oct. 22, 2018).
- The government argued the stay was needed to avoid needless trial expense and to protect the question of whether review should be limited to the administrative record; plaintiffs argued urgency to resolve issues before census printing.
- The district court rejected the stay request, finding defendants failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits of interlocutory relief and emphasizing public interest in timely census resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial should be stayed pending Supreme Court review/mandamus | Proceed to trial to develop record and preserve urgent resolution before census printing | Stay trial to avoid unnecessary expense and preserve Supreme Court review of whether extra-record evidence is permissible | Denied stay: defendants failed to show irreparable harm or likelihood of success on interlocutory relief; trial proceeds as scheduled |
| Whether extra-record discovery beyond the administrative record is permissible | Extra-record discovery warranted due to a strong preliminary showing of bad faith/pretext (equal protection intent evidence) | Review should be limited to the administrative record; extra-record discovery improper | Court previously authorized limited extra-record discovery based on bad-faith exception and declined to stay that ruling |
| Whether defendants suffer irreparable harm from proceeding to trial | No irreparable harm; litigation expense is not irreparable; government scrutiny is ordinary and permitted | Expense, burden on officials, and dignitary harms from court scrutiny of executive branch | Court: monetary and scheduling burdens are not irreparable; "dignitary" argument fails because APA invites judicial review |
| Whether likelihood of success justifies immediate appellate relief (mandamus/certiorari) | Plaintiffs argue interlocutory review unnecessary; courts should decide merits first | Defendants argue Supreme Court likely to rule that extra-record discovery and certain depositions were improper | Court: defendants did not show likelihood of success; Supreme Court order did not indicate probable reversal of July 3 discovery order |
Key Cases Cited
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183 (2010) (stay/irreparable-harm standard discussion)
- Renegotiation Bd. v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U.S. 1 (1974) (litigation expense not irreparable injury)
- Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011) (interlocutory actions remain steps toward final judgment)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (stay factors analysis)
- Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977) (intent inquiry in equal protection cases)
- Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985) (administrative-record review principle)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1971) (bad-faith exception to record rule)
- Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981) (final-judgment rule and piecemeal appeals)
- Nat'l Audubon Soc'y v. Hoffman, 132 F.3d 7 (2d Cir. 1997) (bad-faith exception applied in Second Circuit)
- Cunningham v. Hamilton Cty., 527 U.S. 198 (1999) (purposes of final-judgment rule)