A federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California unloaded on the attempted inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, calling Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross‘ decision “arbitrary and capricious.” U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg awarded a nationwide injunction to the plaintiffs–the State of California and the City of San Jose–in a massive 126-page order, which concluded that the inclusion of the question violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution. At the very end of the tome, Seeborg added an “in short” that got to the heart of the matter. “In short, the inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census threatens the very foundation of our democratic system—and does so based on a self-defeating rationale,” he said. “In light of these findings, Defendants do not get another bite at the apple. Defendants are hereby enjoined from including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census, regardless of any technical compliance with the APA.” The road leading up to that “in short” was a long one for Wilbur Ross. Seeborg said that he struggled to find agencies in the U.S. government to agree with the citizenship question’s inclusion: Nearly a year before issuing that decision, on May 2, 2017, Secretary Ross sent an email to Deputy Chief of Staff Earl Comstock stating in part “I am mystified why nothing [has] been done in response to my months old request that we include the citizenship question. Why not?” What ensued was a cynical search to find some reason, any reason, or an agency request to justify that preordained result. As to the APA, one need look no further than the Administrative Record to conclude that the decision to include the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious, represented an abuse of discretion, and was otherwise not in accordance with law. In response to Secretary Ross’s demand, Comstock began to search for an agency that would be willing to request the inclusion of the citizenship question in the 2020 Census. When initially approached by Comstock about the citizenship question, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) opted not to request its inclusion in the census. Comstock then reached out to the Department of Homeland Security, which similarly declined to request the addition of the question. Only after Secretary Ross personally interceded with then Attorney General Jeff Sessions did the DOJ switch its position and request the inclusion of a citizenship question, ostensibly to assist in the enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”). Seeborg said that the defendant did not refute evidence “produced by the professional staff of the Census Bureau” that said the question would “likely result in a significant differential decline in self-response rates within noncitizen and Latino communities and that the requested data could be obtained by other means.” The judge said that Ross’ reliance on the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to justify the question was “mere pretext and the definition of an arbitrary and capricious governmental act.” Eventually, Seeborg referenced the trial results related to the assessment of the impact of the citizenship question. New York v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, you may recall, is going to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS will review the case in advance of a judgment by the appellate court, and oral arguments are scheduled for April. U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman memorably said that Ross had a serious credibility problem — “Applying well-established principles to the unusual facts of these cases, the Court concludes that the question is not a close one: Secretary Ross must sit for a deposition because, among other things, his intent and credibility are directly at issue in these cases.” “The evidence admitted in the trial of these actions demonstrates that a significant differential undercount, particularly impacting noncitizen and Latino communities, will result from the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census, compounded by macro-environmental factors arising out of the national immigration debate,” Seeborg said. In closing, Seeborg said that, although there has been some handwringing over nationwide injunctions, the plaintiffs checked off every box to get one. A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy four requirements: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” The decision whether to grant injunctive relief ultimately falls within a court’s equitable discretion. Here, Seeborg said, each of the four elements is satisfied, so a nationwide injunction is appropriate here. “As previously noted, this Court is mindful of concerns regarding the authority and propriety of an individual district judge in one judicial district issuing an injunction of nationwide application,” he said. “In light of the unitary nature of the question at issue, by definition no injunctive relief could be limited to only one geographic area or to only certain litigants. Put simply, the citizenship question is either on or off the 2020 Census, thereby practically requiring an injunction nationwide in scope.” Judge blocks 2020 Census question by Law&Crime on Scribd [Image via Win McNamee/Getty Images] Have a tip we should know? [email protected]<doc-sep>The administration has been on the losing end of scores of court decisions involving immigration issues since President Trump took office. But the census case has taken on special significance because it strikes at the heart of the United States’ form of government and because of what Seeborg described as a “strong showing of bad faith” by a Cabinet secretary who, influenced in part by White House advisers, tried to conceal his motives.<doc-sep>A federal judge has rejected the Trump administration’s decision to ask people about their citizenship on the 2020 census for the second time. The decision by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco, is similar to one in January by District Judge Jesse Furman in New York, who also concluded that adding the question if a person is a citizen of the U.S. would violate federal law. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the administration’s expedited appeal of the New York ruling on April 23, according to Forbes. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is asking House Democrats to delay a hearing on the Trump administration's decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, arguing the agency needs more time to prepare for expected questions on the former investor’s financial entanglements. Ross wants to voluntarily testify, but is asking for 6 more weeks so the hearing will be set for April 29th. Ross is under fire for falsely claiming in a 2018 financial disclosure form to have sold his stake in BankUnited, an oversight the top government watchdog office in February ruled violated a federal ethics agreement. He previously promised to sell the shares within three months of his Senate confirmation in 2017. Now, as the House Oversight Committee prepares to question Ross on the discrepancy at a March 14 hearing on the census, the agency is requesting additional time to prepare due to “limited resources, constrained personnel, timing, and the desire to be responsive.” It’s clear the panel intends “to ask the Secretary questions about his personal finances and ethics obligations – topics that we did not anticipate nor expect to be covered in such detail,” Michael Platt, the assistant secretary for legislative and intergovernmental affairs, wrote in a letter to Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., on Tuesday. The Commerce Department said it provided the committee roughly 5,700 pages of documents and plans to send another batch of 3,000 pages on Wednesday. “We have expended hundreds of hours of staff time to satisfy your requests,” Platt wrote. “This should demonstrate that we take oversight responsibilities and obligations very seriously.” A panel spokesperson did not immediately respond to request for comment. Apart from Ross’ investments, Democrats have raised alarm at the agency’s efforts to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census -- which goes to every U.S. household -- arguing that it would dissuade some families from responding and result in an inaccurate population count. The Supreme Court is slated to hear arguments from both sides in April and previously promised to decide the case before it adjourns in June. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APP Ross previously said the question was included at the request of the Department of Justice.<doc-sep>A second court ruled against the ongoing dispute to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, in a ruling that accuses Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross of making an arbitrary, capricious decision and breaking the law. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California issued the 126-page ruling Wednesday, citing the administration’s decision to add the question as “fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public.” In the ruling, Seeborg expressed concern that including the question would depress response rates as immigrants and noncitizens are fearful to reveal their immigration status, thereby creating “a significant risk of distorting the apportionment of congressional representation among the states. In short, the inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.” Seeborg is the second judge to rule the citizenship census question illegal. In a decision filed Jan. 15, Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of New York barred the administration from adding the question, citing the Commerce Department’s failure to follow the established protocol for the issuance of regulations, known as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The administration appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court will hear it in April. While both decisions found the administration violated the APA, the Seeborg ruling goes a step further by declaring the question to be a violation of the Enumeration Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the U.S. government to conduct a census every 10 years. This could present another issue for the Supreme Court to take up, if the administration decides to appeal the ruling. (RELATED: Supreme Court To Decide On Citizenship Question In 2020 Census) Since attempting to include a citizenship question for the 2020 census, the Trump administration has faced considerable opposition. Litigation has been on behalf of immigrant-heavy populations, according to The Washington Post. Follow Whitney on Twitter Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.<doc-sep>
By Fred Barbash | Washington Post Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross acted in “bad faith,” broke several laws and violated the constitutional underpinning of representative democracy when he added a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, a federal judge ruled Wednesday. In finding a breach of the Constitution’s enumeration clause, which requires a census every 10 years to determine each state’s representation in Congress, the 126-page ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg in San Francisco went further than a similar decision on Jan. 15 by Judge Jesse Furman in New York. The Supreme Court has agreed to review Furman’s narrower decision, with arguments set for April 23, but it may now need to expand its inquiry to constitutional dimensions. The Commerce Department did not respond to requests for comment. The administration has been on the losing end of scores of court decisions involving immigration issues since President Donald Trump took office. But the census case has taken on special significance because it strikes at the heart of the United States’ form of government and because of what Seeborg described as a “strong showing of bad faith” by a Cabinet secretary who, influenced in part by White House advisers, tried to conceal his motives. The cases against Ross have been brought by jurisdictions with significant immigrant populations. Two have completed trials: the case heard by Furman and brought by 18 states led by New York, and the challenge initiated by the state of California and combined with a suit brought by the city of San Jose. Unable to find any expert in the Census Bureau who approved of his plan to add the citizenship question, Seeborg wrote, Ross engaged in a “cynical search to find some reason, any reason” to justify the decision. He was fully aware that the question would produce a census undercount, particularly among Latinos, the judge said. That would have probably reduced the representation in Congress – and thus in the electoral college that decides the presidency – of states with significant immigrant populations, notably California. Because census data is used to apportion distribution of federal funds, an undercount would also have cheated these same jurisdictions, the judge said. Seeborg, like Furman, found after a trial that Ross misrepresented both to the public and Congress his reasons for adding the citizenship question in March 2018. Ross said he was acting at the request of the Justice Department in the interest of enforcing the Voting Rights Act. In reality, the “evidence establishes” that the voting rights explanation was just “a pretext” and that Ross “acted in bad faith” when he said otherwise. He pursued the citizenship question after hearing from then-White House adviser Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach, the vice chairman of Trump’s now-disbanded voting fraud commission.