Amy Howe

Jun 26 2019

Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case

With less than 24 hours before the justices are expected to issue their final decisions of the term, yet another filing in the dispute over the decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census arrived at the Supreme Court. This one came from the challengers in the case, who urged the justices to turn down the federal government’s request for a ruling that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross did not intend to discriminate against Hispanic voters when he made the decision to include the citizenship question.

The letter from New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood was the latest in an unusual flurry of filings over the past two days. The case was argued in late April. Normally, the stretch between the oral argument and the announcement of the opinion is relatively (if not completely) quiet, but in late May the challengers notified the court about new evidence that, they said, indicated that the government wanted to add the citizenship question to provide whites and Republicans with an advantage in future elections. Two weeks later, they asked the justices to send the case back to the lower court to allow it to consider that new evidence. The justices have not yet acted on that request.

Although the New York case is before the justices, it is not the only challenge to the decision to include the citizenship question in 2020. In April, a federal judge in Maryland had ruled for civil-rights groups challenging Ross’ decision, but he rejected their claim that Ross had intended to discriminate against Hispanic voters.

The civil-rights groups appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which yesterday sent the case back to U.S. District Judge George Hazel for him to consider the groups’ discrimination claim in light of the new evidence. In a concurring opinion, Judge James Wynn suggested that Hazel might want to consider whether to temporarily block the government from including the citizenship question on the census questionnaire.

In the wake of the 4th Circuit’s order yesterday, the government wrote to the justices, asking them to decide the question of Ross’ intent in their opinion in the New York case. Doing so, the government reasoned, would allow the court to settle the issue once and for all, and to avoid having to do so in an emergency appeal from the Maryland case.

In a letter on behalf of all of the challengers in the New York case, Underwood urged the justices to deny what she characterized as the government’s “extraordinary request.” The question of whether Ross intended to discriminate against Hispanics wasn’t briefed or argued in this case, she emphasized, except for one “conclusory paragraph” in the government’s brief. Under the Supreme Court’s normal practice, she continued, the justices wouldn’t address this question; it makes even less sense for them to do so when the government’s request is based on “speculative concerns about a potentially adverse decision in a separate case not before this Court.”

This post was also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies