 |
TWITTER / SEARC
Southeast Asians joined in the demonstration in front of the Supreme Court this morning. |
The Supreme Court is apparently going to split along ideological lines in the case U.S. Department of Commerce v. New York, et al. which tackles the legitimacy of Trump administration's desire to ask the question about citizenship in the 2020 Census.
Based on their questions, the five conservative justices will likely rule in favor of the Trump administration.
Below, tweets from Amy Howe, who contributes to SCOTUSblog.com and Nina Totenberg, who writes for NPR. Both of them were in the room to hear the arguments. and listen to the Justices' questions.
Graphics provided by Subscript Law, a nonprofit legal news website.
According to Totenberg's report, the liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, interrupted the opening statement of Trump administration's attorney, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, a Filipino American, questioning the administration's justification for the question.
"There's no doubt that people will respond less" to the census if it includes the question, Sotomayor said.
Justice Elena Kagan noted that the record of evidence for the case shows the need for a citizenship question is a "contrived one." She told Francisco that she searched the record for Ross's justification in 2018, but came up empty. She suggested that Francisco was providing a kind of "post hoc rationalization" after the decision was made.
The conservative Justices did the same to the presenters arguing against the question. Dale Ho of the ACLU argued on behalf of civil rights organizations, He argued that the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution asks for an accurate count of all individuals in the country, not distinguishing between citizen or non-citizen.
"The government stopped asking this question, along with dozens of others on the census when it realized that these questions were harming the accuracy of the population count and were specifically causing an undercount of communities of color," Ho said.
He pointed out that the Census' own analysts predict that there will be 6.5 million people not counted if the citizenship question is included in the questionnaire.
All of that seemed not to matter to the conservatives on the bench, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts.
"There's no doubt that people will respond less" to the census if it includes the question, Sotomayor said.
Justice Elena Kagan noted that the record of evidence for the case shows the need for a citizenship question is a "contrived one." She told Francisco that she searched the record for Ross's justification in 2018, but came up empty. She suggested that Francisco was providing a kind of "post hoc rationalization" after the decision was made.
The conservative Justices did the same to the presenters arguing against the question. Dale Ho of the ACLU argued on behalf of civil rights organizations, He argued that the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution asks for an accurate count of all individuals in the country, not distinguishing between citizen or non-citizen.
"The government stopped asking this question, along with dozens of others on the census when it realized that these questions were harming the accuracy of the population count and were specifically causing an undercount of communities of color," Ho said.
He pointed out that the Census' own analysts predict that there will be 6.5 million people not counted if the citizenship question is included in the questionnaire.
All of that seemed not to matter to the conservatives on the bench, including Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts.
Even under the current political climate dominated by the White House and its anti-immigrant agenda, the Census Bureau's own analysts concluded that if the citizenship question is included in the tally that the Census would miss over 6 million people.
 |
Ross decided to ignore the bureau's findings, however, claiming the question is needed in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court, ironically, weakened last year by eliminating the need for stricter enforcement in certain states that have shown, in the past, a propensity for voter disenfranchisement.
The Trump administration contends that all the justices should consider is that Ross made a rational decision. However, three lower courts in California, Maryland and New York found that the decision, in fact, was not rational, but arbitrary.
The Trump administration contends that all the justices should consider is that Ross made a rational decision. However, three lower courts in California, Maryland and New York found that the decision, in fact, was not rational, but arbitrary.
The stakes are high. Critics opposed to the the citizenship question fear that the Census count would result in an undercount in states with large numbers of immigrants taking away Congressional seats and federal funding from those states. It would affect nont onlly Democratic states such as New York, California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Washington, but also states like Texas and Florida, that are dominated by Republicans.
The Supreme Court Justices will render their decision in June. The Census will test their questionnaire shortly thereafter and print up the forms before October.
__________________________________________________________________
No comments:
Post a Comment