SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The Trump administration's plan to include a citizenship status question on the 2020 U.S. census has been called "an attempt to racially rig the census" by Common Cause. (Photo: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images)
A Showdown on the Census Citizenship Question Is Coming to the Supreme Court
The Court is expected to issue an opinion before the end of June 2019
Feb 15, 2019
Today, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The addition of such a question would likely depress census turnout, skew the allocation of congressional seats, and change how billions of dollars in federal funding are distributed to the states.
The decision comes after a federal court in New York ruled against the administration in the case, New York v. United States Department of Commerce. The lower court had decided that the Commerce Department's decision to add the question was "arbitrary" and made in violation of federal law.
In an unusual move, the Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling directly to the Supreme Court, rather than going first to the court of appeals.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up two questions. First, the Justices will consider whether the New York court was correct to block the citizenship question. Second, the Court will decide if the lower court properly allowed the groups challenging the question to obtain documents and other information from the federal government.
The Court also granted the administration's request for a quicker-than-normal schedule, setting oral argument for the second week of the April argument session. This expedited timeline means the Court should issue an opinion before the end of June 2019, which is crucial to ensure that the 2020 Census can proceed on time.
For more on the case, visit our case page. For more on the 2020 Census, visit our resource page.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Brennan Center for Justice
Brianna Cea
Brianna Cea is a Research and Program Associate in the Democracy Program, where her work focuses on the census, redistricting, and election security. Outside of the Brennan Center, Brianna serves as the Co-founder and CEO of Generation Vote.
Today, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The addition of such a question would likely depress census turnout, skew the allocation of congressional seats, and change how billions of dollars in federal funding are distributed to the states.
The decision comes after a federal court in New York ruled against the administration in the case, New York v. United States Department of Commerce. The lower court had decided that the Commerce Department's decision to add the question was "arbitrary" and made in violation of federal law.
In an unusual move, the Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling directly to the Supreme Court, rather than going first to the court of appeals.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up two questions. First, the Justices will consider whether the New York court was correct to block the citizenship question. Second, the Court will decide if the lower court properly allowed the groups challenging the question to obtain documents and other information from the federal government.
The Court also granted the administration's request for a quicker-than-normal schedule, setting oral argument for the second week of the April argument session. This expedited timeline means the Court should issue an opinion before the end of June 2019, which is crucial to ensure that the 2020 Census can proceed on time.
For more on the case, visit our case page. For more on the 2020 Census, visit our resource page.
Brianna Cea
Brianna Cea is a Research and Program Associate in the Democracy Program, where her work focuses on the census, redistricting, and election security. Outside of the Brennan Center, Brianna serves as the Co-founder and CEO of Generation Vote.
Today, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments on the Trump administration's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. The addition of such a question would likely depress census turnout, skew the allocation of congressional seats, and change how billions of dollars in federal funding are distributed to the states.
The decision comes after a federal court in New York ruled against the administration in the case, New York v. United States Department of Commerce. The lower court had decided that the Commerce Department's decision to add the question was "arbitrary" and made in violation of federal law.
In an unusual move, the Trump administration appealed the lower court's ruling directly to the Supreme Court, rather than going first to the court of appeals.
The Supreme Court agreed to take up two questions. First, the Justices will consider whether the New York court was correct to block the citizenship question. Second, the Court will decide if the lower court properly allowed the groups challenging the question to obtain documents and other information from the federal government.
The Court also granted the administration's request for a quicker-than-normal schedule, setting oral argument for the second week of the April argument session. This expedited timeline means the Court should issue an opinion before the end of June 2019, which is crucial to ensure that the 2020 Census can proceed on time.
For more on the case, visit our case page. For more on the 2020 Census, visit our resource page.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.