State v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
315 F. Supp. 3d 766
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Secretary Wilbur Ross directed reinstatement of a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census, citing a DOJ request to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
- Two consolidated suits: (1) Government Plaintiffs (18‑CV‑2921) — states, D.C., cities/counties — challenged under the Enumeration Clause and the APA; (2) NGO Plaintiffs (18‑CV‑5025) — nonprofits and members — raised APA and Fifth Amendment equal protection claims.
- Historical practice: citizenship/birthplace questions appeared on most censuses from 1820 through 1950 and on long‑form/ACS surveys thereafter; Census Bureau historically warned universal citizenship questions can depress response among immigrants.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of standing, political‑question/nonreviewability, and failure to state Enumeration and equal‑protection claims.
- The court (Furman, J.) denied broad nonreviewability arguments, held the Enumeration Clause claim failed (Secretary has authority to ask about citizenship), but allowed APA and NGO equal‑protection claims to proceed to discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Adding citizenship will depress response → undercount → loss of federal funds and representation | Alleged harms are speculative and third‑party nonresponse breaks causation | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged imminent, traceable injuries; standing satisfied at pleading stage |
| Political question / nonreviewability | Courts can review Census decisions affecting constitutional rights | Enumeration Clause and broad statutory delegation place decisions beyond judicial review | Political‑question and §701(a)(2) arguments rejected; judicial review available with deference |
| APA reviewability | Secretary’s action reviewable under APA as final agency action; plaintiffs seek review for arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional action | Census Act commits question selection to Secretary’s discretion, barring review | APA claims are reviewable; statutory discretion does not preclude judicial standards |
| Enumeration Clause (power to ask citizenship) | Adding question undermines "actual Enumeration" and is thus unconstitutional | Constitution and historical practice give Congress/Secretary broad discretion to collect demographic data | Enumeration Clause claim dismissed: asking about citizenship is within Congress/Secretary authority, historically supported |
| Fifth Amendment equal‑protection (NGOs only) | Decision was motivated in part by discriminatory animus and will have disparateimpact on immigrant communities of color | Policy is facially neutral; review should be deferential and plaintiffs’ intent allegations are speculative | NGO complaint plausibly alleges discriminatory intent and effect (procedural departures, pretext, contemporaneous statements); claim survives dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury‑in‑fact, traceability, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (limits on speculative future‑injury standing)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (traceability and causation at pleading stage)
- Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1980) (jurisdiction and standing to challenge census undercount)
- U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (review of census methodology and judicial role)
- Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (broad congressional discretion under the Enumeration Clause; deference to Secretary)
- Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (historical practice relevant to Enumeration Clause review)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (factors for proving discriminatory intent)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (interpretation of committed‑to‑agency‑discretion exception)
- Pers. Adm'r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (definition of discriminatory purpose)