DOJ Begins Appeal Of Ruling That Blocks Census Citizenship Question

NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 3: Signs sit behind the podium before the start of a press conference with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to announce a multi-state lawsuit to block the Trump administration from add... NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 3: Signs sit behind the podium before the start of a press conference with New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to announce a multi-state lawsuit to block the Trump administration from adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census form, at the headquarters of District Council 37, New York City's largest public employee union, April 3, 2018 in New York City. Critics of President Donald Trump's administration's decision to reinstate the citizenship question contend that that it will frighten people in immigrant communities from responding to the census. The Trump administration has stated a citizenship question on the census will help enforce voting rights. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
January 18, 2019 9:53 a.m.
JOIN TPM FOR JUST $1

NEW YORK (AP) — The Justice Department began its appeal Thursday of a New York judge’s ruling stopping the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census for the first time since 1950.

Garrett Coyle, a Justice Department attorney based in Washington, filed the one-page notice of appeal in Manhattan federal court on behalf of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. Department of Commerce and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

The notice was forwarded to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which also sits in Manhattan.

U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman said in a lengthy written opinion Tuesday that Ross violated laws by acting in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner before announcing in March that he would add the question.

Furman concluded that lawsuits were accurate when they claimed the question would lead to an undercount of non-citizens, costing some states congressional representation and federal funding.

Furman also rejected Ross’ claim that the question was necessary to help the government enforce the Voting Rights Act. He said Ross acted irrationally as he badly misconstrued evidence and failed to justify major departures from past policies and practices.

A trial on a separate lawsuit on the same issue, filed by the state of California, is underway in San Francisco.

Comments
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Senior Editor:
Special Projects Editor:
Investigations Desk:
Reporter:
Senior Newswriter:
Newswriters:
Editor at Large:
General Manager & General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Publishing Associate:
Front-End Developer:
Senior Designer: