Summary
The City of San Jose and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration filed a lawsuit against the Department of Commerce arguing that the Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and produced the second trial victory on the citizenship question issue. On June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion blocking the citizenship question in a related case, New York v. United States Department of Commerce. The judge in this case subsequently issued an injunction permanently preventing the Commerce Department from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
Case Background
The City of San Jose and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration (BAJI) sued the Department of Commerce, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Census Bureau, and acting Census Director Ron Jarmin over the Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs alleged that adding the question would exacerbate historic undercounts in African-American, Latino, and other minority communities, leading to losses in congressional representation and federal funding for San Jose and causing BAJI to divert resources to address census issues.
Because the addition of the question would depress census responses, the complaint contended, the decision to add it violated the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the government conduct an “actual enumeration” of the nation’s entire population. The plaintiffs also contended that adding the question would inevitably lead to a violation of the government’s federal constitutional duty to apportion congressional seats based on the “whole number of persons” residing in each state. Finally, the complaint contended that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act’s bars on unlawful and arbitrary agency decision-making by, among other things, inadequately testing the effects of adding the citizenship question on its ability to perform a fair and accurate count.
The court consolidated the discovery schedule in this case with the schedule in another citizenship-question suit, State of California v. Ross.
On August 17, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed on their Enumeration Clause claim, their Apportionment Clause claim, and their Administrative Procedure Act claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs discovery beyond the administrative record.
During the motion to dismiss briefing, the Brennan Center filed an amicus brief with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Leadership Conference Education Fund, Muslim Advocates, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, NALEO Educational Fund, et al., supporting the plaintiffs in their efforts to block the citizenship question.
The court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiffs’ motion for a partial summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The bench trial began on January 7, 2019.
The district court ruled on March 6, 2019 for the plaintiffs on their APA and Enumeration Clause claims, and ordered the Commerce Department to remove the citizenship question from the 2020 Census.
On June 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in light of its June 27, 2019 opinion striking down the citizenship question in New York v. United States Department of Commerce.
On July 11, 2019, the federal government announced that it would abandon its pursuit of the citizenship question. The judge in this case subsequently issued an injunction permanently preventing the Commerce Department from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
Key Documents
District Court
Brennan Center Filings
Filings, Orders and Opinions
- Complaint (April 17, 2018)
- Order Setting Initial Case Management Conference and ADR Deadlines (April 17, 2018)
- Order (May 22, 2018)
- Notice of Filing of Administrative Record (June 8, 2018)
- Order (June 12, 2018)
- Motion to Expand Discovery Beyond the Administrative Record (June 14, 2018)
- Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Review on the Administrative Record (June 14, 2018)
- Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule and Excess Pages for Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss; Order (June 18, 2018)
- Notice of Filing Supplement to Administrative Record (June 21, 2018)
- Opposition to Defendants’ Memorandum in Support of Review on the Administrative Record (June 21, 2018)
- Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (June 21, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply in Support of Review on the Administrative Records (June 21, 2018)
- Joint Rule 26(F) Report and Initial Case Management Conference Statement (June 21, 2018)
- Amicus Brief of Project on Fair Representation in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (July 2,2018)
- Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (July 17, 2018)
- Amicus Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice, et al. in Support of Plaintiffs (July 24, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss (July 31, 2018)
- Opinion and Order re: Motion to Dismiss (August 17, 2018)
- Order Granting Discovery Outside of the Administrative Record (August 17, 2018)
- Order re: Case Schedule (August 30, 2018)
- Defendants’ Answer to Complaint (August 31, 2018)
- Joint Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline (October 9, 2018)
- Order Granting Stipulation to Extend Discovery Deadline (October 9, 2018)
- Defendants’ Notice (October 10, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Notice (October 11, 2018)
- Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (November 2, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (November 2, 2018)
- Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (November 16, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (November 16, 2018)
- Declaration of Andrew Case in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (November 16, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (November 26, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgement (November 26, 2018)
- Order (December 14, 2018)
- Joint Pretrial Statement and Proposed Order (December 21, 2018)
- Motion to Stay Pretrial Deadlines, Pretrial Conference and Trial (December 26, 2018)
- Order Denying Motion to Stay (December 26, 2018)
- Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (December 28, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Pretrial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (December 28, 2018)
- Joint Pretrial Statement and Order (January 2, 2019)
- Joint Evidence List (January 25, 2019)
- Amicus Brief of Tech: NYC, Univision Communications Inc., Warby Parker, General Assembly, and the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce in Support of Plaintiffs (February 1, 2019)
- Defendants’ Post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (February 1, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Post-trial Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (February 1, 2019)
- Order (March 6, 2019)
- Notice of Proceedings in Related Action (May 30, 2019)
U.S. Supreme Court (Case No. 18–1214)
- Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment (March 18, 2019)
- Motion to Expedite (March 19, 2019)
- Brief in Response to Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Before Judgment (March 20, 2019)
- Amicus Brief of Fair Lines America Foundation (March 21, 2019)