Department of Commerce v. New York
Issues
Can a district court order the collection of evidence outside the administrative record—including compelling a high-ranking government official’s deposition—without any evidence showing that the decisionmaker did not believe the objective reasons behind the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis?
Was the Department of Commerce’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census unlawful—either under the Administrative Procedure Act or the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution?
In addition to determining whether the Census Bureau’s addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census was lawful, the Court must also determine whether the Court can order discovery outside the administrative record, including a deposition of the Secretary of Commerce. The Department of Commerce argues that the deposition substantially intrudes on the Secretary’s job because there is no showing of bad faith nor extraordinary circumstances which warrant the additional discovery. The Department of Commerce also posit that the addition of the citizenship question was not arbitrary and capricious, was in accordance with law, and did not violate the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution. The Department of Commerce finally contends that adding a citizenship question would provide more accurate citizenship information and help enforce the Voting Rights Act. However, the State of New York and the New York Immigration Coalition assert that the Secretary exhibited bad faith by submitting an incomplete record and they contend that his reasons for doing so are incomplete and pretextual. They argue that because he is uniquely and personally involved in adding the citizenship question, extraordinary circumstances warrant his deposition. The State of New York and the New York Immigration Coalition counter that adding a citizenship question would lower response rates from noncitizens and affect apportionment of representatives.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
(1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq;
(2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials —without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and
(3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution requires that the United States population be counted every ten years. New York v. United States Department of Commerce (“N.Y. v. Department”), at 2.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Adam Liptak, The Supreme Court Will Soon Consider Whether Census Will Include a Citizenship Question, New York Times (Apr. 15, 2019).
- Richard Wolf, Inside Trump Administration’s Mysterious Plan to Secure a 2020 Census Citizenship Question, USA Today (Apr. 13, 2019).
- Dartunorro Clark, Supreme Court Expands Scope of Census Citizenship Question Case, NBC News (Mar. 15, 2019).
- I.K. & S. M., A Judge Says the Trump Administration Cannot Include Citizenship in the Census, The Economist (Jan. 17, 2019).
- Tara Bahrampour, Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration’s Push for Citizenship Question on 2020 Census, Washington Post (Jan. 15, 2019).