# Supreme Court looks likely to approve Census citizenship question by 5-4 vote **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 25, 2019, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025 "2019-04-25T05:30:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/41 "2019-04-25T17:18:06Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > One could make the argument that collecting additional statistical information above and beyond a simple count might make the count less accurate, but “the law” doesn’t appear to care. Despite what you think is “implied”, there don’t appear to be any serious constitutional issues with asking about citizenship (or race or gender or the other myriad things that get asked on a census questionnaire) The question should be, “How much less accurate is it?” I see no problem with the census including other questions but I think the primary goal of the census is to count people and there should be a limit to how much the accuracy of that count is impacted by other questions. If they can show that the count becomes less accurate but it is statistically insignificant then fine. It remains that the constitutional directive is to count people. Not gather other info. So the other info gathering, while fine, should take a back seat to the primary goal of accurately counting the populace. If the citizenship question does not hurt that count then I have no problem with it being asked. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/42 "2019-04-25T17:35:27Z")
The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/43 "2019-04-25T17:37:50Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. > Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” > > Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision. I agree, and yet four justices are likely to vote against the administration, because: > [@Ravenman](#): > > The law doesn’t really matter to a handful of Supreme Court justices – politics does. … ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/44 "2019-04-25T17:38:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Justice Gorsuch, IIRC, made the point - if Congress doesn’t want the question, they can pass a law and keep it off the census. Which accords with the general view that Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court doesn’t. Or shouldn’t. How is the Supreme Court making a law here? The constitution demands we hold a census every ten years. If the administration decides to do something that imperils that count happening or damage its accuracy it is absolutely the place of the court to stop it and see that the constitutional directive is carried out appropriately. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/45 "2019-04-25T17:42:23Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants… So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that’d be ok? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/46 "2019-04-25T17:46:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that’d be ok? I don’t think one has ever tried, but if they did, the obvious remedy would be for Congress to curtail his delegated power to determine the way the census is to be conducted. This isn’t a situation that even remotely resembles that though. Commerce isn’t saying they’re not going to ask non-citizens questions or count them. The fear is that illegals won’t respond / answer the questions. A better analogy would be what if the Secretary of Commerce wanted to ask about sexual orientation on the census and some people raised the concern that gays might respond at lower rates due to the presence of that question. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/47 "2019-04-25T17:51:15Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. > Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” How does the Constitution feel about the government getting census information that is completely wrong, and allocating resources for public services based on misleadingly bad data? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/48 "2019-04-25T17:52:11Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. > Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” > > Given that the Constitution explicitly gives congress the authority to direct the census in any way they see fit, and congress explicitly give the Secretary of Commerce power to conduct the census in any form he wants, there is no way that asking about illegals is unconstitutional. It is an obvious decision. if that’s the case, and Commerce has carte blanche to run the census any way it wants, why did Wilbur Ross lie so much about the reasons for including the question? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/49 "2019-04-25T18:13:48Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I don’t think one has ever tried, but if they did, the obvious remedy would be for Congress to curtail his delegated power to determine the way the census is to be conducted. This isn’t a situation that even remotely resembles that though. Commerce isn’t saying they’re not going to ask non-citizens questions or count them. The fear is that illegals won’t respond / answer the questions. A better analogy would be what if the Secretary of Commerce wanted to ask about sexual orientation on the census and some people raised the concern that gays might respond at lower rates due to the presence of that question. puddleglum’s position seems to be the Commerce Secretary can do as they see fit as regards the census. End of story. I am suggesting that is not completely true with an extreme example. And while it would be good if congress did its job clearly they do not always do so and the third, co-equal, branch of government is well within its purview to step in and put a stop to such things. Congress and the Commerce Secretary do not have the right to damage the census in any way they see fit. The commandment from the constitution on this is to count the people living in the US every ten years and, one would presume, do it as accurately as can be done (within reason). The court enforcing that it happens that way is entirely appropriate. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/50 "2019-04-25T18:24:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > There’s a constitutional issue with your “strong gun laws”. I don’t think there’s a constitutional issue with the citizenship question. If there’s not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/51 "2019-04-25T18:55:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If there’s not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case? The Supreme Court can hear cases other than those that have a constitutional question. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/52 "2019-04-25T18:59:08Z")
> [@That\_Don\_Guy](#): > > Meanwhile, Title 13, Section 9 says: > > “(a) Neither the Secretary [of Commerce], nor any other officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997— > (1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or > (2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or > (3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports. > No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.” The question is would you bet your home, family and livelihood on an administration that has shown complete disregard for the rule of law and personal hatred towards you and your kind, not “accidentally” releasing it to people it shouldn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/53 "2019-04-25T19:00:47Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I agree, and yet four justices are likely to vote against the administration, because: As have all of the other judges on its path up to the supreme court. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/54 "2019-04-25T19:18:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > if that’s the case, and Commerce has carte blanche to run the census any way it wants, why did Wilbur Ross lie so much about the reasons for including the question? Even if in general collecting statistical information is permissible, it can’t be motivated by impermissible reasons. If the purpose was to discriminate, then an otherwise legal action could be transformed into something illegal. I mean, you know that already. But I typed it so I’m posting it. My view - I think this wont make much difference, I think the question of law is pretty straight forward, and should have been included from inception. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/55 "2019-04-25T19:24:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If there’s not a constitutional question about the citizenship question, why is the Supreme Court reviewing the case? Because the Trump Administration lost at the district level, and applied for cert. [Here are the QP:]((1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker – including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials – without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.) > [@](#): > > (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker – including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials – without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/56 "2019-04-25T19:32:24Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > How is the Supreme Court making a law here? Because > [@puddleglum](#): > > The constitution says that the census should be conducted in such a way as congress shall by law direct. > Congress passed a law that says the Secretary of Commerce shall conduct the census in such a form and content as he may determine. Furthermore, the “the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary” The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct. > [@](#): > > The constitution demands we hold a census every ten years. If the administration decides to do something that imperils that count happening or damage its accuracy it is absolutely the place of the court to stop it and see that the constitutional directive is carried out appropriately. We are going to have a census. And it is being carried out as the Constitution directs. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So if the Secretary of Commerce only wants to send the census to heterosexual people that’d be ok? They couldn’t only send it to heterosexuals. They could, I suppose, include questions about sexual orientation, and if Congress didn’t like it, Congress could overrule those questions. Of course, the question “what gender are you?” would make the census form twenty pages longer from all the combinations and permutations. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/57 "2019-04-25T19:38:18Z")
> [@Thing\_Fish](#): > > The problem is that if immigrants disproportionately avoid returning census forms, States with lots of immigrants will lose out on Congressional representation. And that THAT’S THE POINT OF THE QUESTION. This is like “voter ID laws.” It’s not solving – nor is it INTENDED to solve – any question. It’s only being brought up as a way to suppress non-GOP votes. Nobody actually cares about the actual answer to the question. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/58 "2019-04-25T19:41:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct. You seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court has no authority to decide whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/59 "2019-04-25T19:42:29Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and Congress has directed the Secretary to conduct in a certain way, including questions about how many bathrooms you have and do you own a radio and are you a citizen. So the liberals on the Court want to overturn both the law and the Constitution, by saying No, Congress may not direct. That’s not the argument either. The question presented is in part, whether the Secretary employed impermissible reasoning in including the question. That’s not wanting to overturn the law and the Constitution. If the Secretary made his decision because he hates Hispanic people, wants them to not respond to the census, and is trying to discriminate against them because of their race, then that’s forbidden. Forbidding that type of reasoning is wholly consistent with the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2019, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025/60 "2019-04-25T20:10:03Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > You seem to be arguing that the Supreme Court has no authority to decide whether laws passed by Congress are constitutional or not. I’m arguing what I usually argue in cases like this - the Constitution says what it says, not what liberals want it to say. The Constitution says the census shall be carried out as Congress directs. The liberals on the Court want the Constitution to say the census shall be carried out as they direct. > [@Bone](#): > > That’s not the argument either. The question presented is in part, whether the Secretary employed impermissible reasoning in including the question. That’s not wanting to overturn the law and the Constitution. If the Secretary made his decision because he hates Hispanic people, wants them to not respond to the census, and is trying to discriminate against them because of their race, then that’s forbidden. Forbidding that type of reasoning is wholly consistent with the constitution. Then the remedy is for Congress to modify the law to say “you can’t include citizenship questions because you hate Hispanics - you can only include them if you want to know how many people are non-citizens.” That way, Congress is fulfilling their Constitutional duty of directing the census. If people are afraid to fill out the census because they think they will be deported if they answer it, then they need to be reassured that census information cannot and will not be used against them, or released to the INS, or anything like that. Just like filing your taxes - it is strictly confidential. Unless the House Judiciary committee wants to have a peek, but that probably won’t happen. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-looks-likely-to-approve-census-citizenship-question-by-5-4-vote/833025.md?page=4)