Summary
Asian-American and Latino groups filed a lawsuit against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross challenging the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs argue that the Department’s decision violated the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland and resulted in a court order blocking the citizenship question.
Case Background Twenty-five Asian-American, African-American, Native-American, Latino, and immigrant groups sued Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Department of Commerce, the Acting Director of the Census Bureau, and the Census Bureau for the Commerce Department’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The plaintiffs alleged the addition of the question would discourage Latinos, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, Native Americans, and noncitizens from responding to the census form, and result in a disproportionate undercount, consequently diluting their political representation and federal funding to their communities.
The suit contended the question was intended to severely undercount Latino, Asian Americans, immigrants, and other populations, a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs also alleged the decision infringed the federal government’s duty to conduct an “actual enumeration” of every person in this county and apportion congressional seats based upon a count of “the whole number of persons,” violating the Apportionment and Enumeration Clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that Secretary Ross and the Acting Director of the Census Bureau conspired with others – including members of the Trump Administration – to violate the equal protection rights of Latinos, African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and foreign-born persons.
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 and the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, supporting the plaintiffs in their efforts to block the citizenship question.
On December 19, 2018, the court denied the government’s motion for summary judgment, allowing the case to proceed to trial. The court consolidated this case with Kravitz v. United States Dep’t of Commerce for the purposes of that trial.
The district court ruled on April 5, 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 April 12, the federal government appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
On June 25, 2019 the Fourth Circuit granted the plaintiffs request to remand the case to the district court for further discovery on their equal protection claims in light of newly discovered evidence regarding the Trump administration’s reason for adding the citizenship question. On July 5, the district court ordered that discovery to proceed.
On July 11, 2019, the federal government announced that it would abandon its pursuit of the citizenship question.
Key Documents
Brennan Center Filings
- Amicus Brief of the Brennan Center for Justice, et al. in Support of Plaintiffs (September 13, 2018)
Filings, Orders and Opinions
- Complaint (May 31, 2018)
- Amended Complaint (July 9, 2018)
- Motion to Dismiss (August 24, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Opposed Request for Entry of a Scheduling Order (August 31, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (September 7, 2018)
- Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (September 14, 2018)
- Scheduling Order (September 20, 2018)
- Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Letter Motion re: Discovery and Depose Non-Party Kris Kobach (October 5, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief in Reply to Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Letter Motion re: Discovery and Depose Non-Party Kris Kobach (October 12, 2018)
- Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (November 9, 2018)
- Motion for Summary Judgement (November 12, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief Requesting Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery (November 14, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (November 27, 2018)
- Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Request for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery (November 28, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Letter Brief Requesting for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery (December 3, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply in Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (December 4, 2018)
- Joint Motion to Consolidate Cases (December 6, 2018)
- Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment (December 19, 2018)
- Motion to Stay Pretrial Deadlines, Pretrial Conference and Trial (December 27, 2018)
- Order Denying Motion to Stay (December 28, 2018)
- Memorandum Opinion re: Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment (December 28, 2018)
- Joint Proposed Pretrial Order (January 14, 2019)
- Joint Stipulations of Fact (January 14, 2019)
- Letter Order (January 16, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact (February 14, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Proposed Conclusions of Law (February 14, 2019)
- Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (February 14, 2019)
- Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (April 5, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(B)(2) Motion for Relief From Final Judgment & Request for Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) (June 3, 2019)
- Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(B)(2) Motion for Relief From Final Judgment & Request for Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) (June 3, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Further Support of Their Rule 60(B)(2) Motion for Relief From Final Judgment & Request For Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) (June 14, 2019)
- Notice (June 19, 2019)
- Order (June 19, 2019)
- Memorandum Opinion (June 24, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Injunction Pending Appeal (June 26, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Expedited Briefing Schedule (June 26, 2019)
- Defendants’ Proposed Discovery Plan (July 5, 2019)
- Defendants’ Motion to Withdraw Counsel (July 8, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Response re: Motion to Withdraw Counsel (July 9, 2019)
- Defendants’ Reply (July 10, 2019)
- Memorandum and Opinion re: Motion to Withdraw Counsel (July 10, 2019)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Case No. 19–1382)
- Briefing Order (May 10, 2019)
- Amended Plaintiff-Appellees’ Motion to Expedite Appeal (May 18, 2019)
- Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Expedite (May 20, 2019)
- Plaintiff-Appellees’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Place the Consolidated Appeals in Abeyance (May 22, 2019)
- Kravitz et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees Response Regarding Briefing Schedule (May 23, 2019)
- Order (May 29, 2019)
- Brief for Defendants-Appellees (June 19, 2019)
- Corrected Notice of District Court’s Indicative Ruling and Motion for Remand (June 20, 2019)
- Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (June 24, 2019)
- Order (June 25, 2019)
- Joint Motion for Abeyance (June 25, 2019)
- Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Reply Brief (June 26, 2019)
- Order (June 28, 2019)