- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
- Date Filed: June 27, 2019
- Case #: 18-966
- Judge(s)/Court Below: ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
- Full Text Opinion
Respondents sued the Secretary of Commerce for reinstating a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, alleging violations of the Enumeration Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Administrative Procedure Act. The district court dismissed the Enumeration Clause claim, found no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but granted judgment to Respondents for their statutory claims. The Government filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, arguing that the imperative public importance of the case justified deviation from normal appellate practice. On review, the Supreme Court noted that the potential loss of federal funds from the citizenship question’s impact on population counts established Article III standing. The Court then affirmed that Congress’s broad authority under the Enumeration Clause did not provide a basis for review. Turning to the statutory violations, the Court cited statutory language and precedent while holding the Secretary’s decision subject to judicial review. However, the Court did not find the Secretary’s decision an unreasonable exercise of discretion. Still, the Court agreed with the district court’s remanding of the case to the Department of Commerce for further explanation, because evidence of the Secretary’s intent to reinstate the citizenship question from the time he entered office conflicted with the given rationale for reinstating a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.