A Second Federal Court Just Struck Down the 2020 Census Citizenship Question

A court said the question “threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announces a lawsuit filed by California challenging a citizenship question on the 2020 census.Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

A second federal judge on Wednesday struck down a controversial question about US citizenship that the Trump administration added to the 2020 census, writing that it “threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.” The question, which the Trump administration officially announced in March 2017, would have asked 2020 census respondents whether they are US citizens.

Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California sided with the state of California in its lawsuit against the administration, finding that the question would significantly depress response rates from Latino communities and noncitizens. A federal judge in New York first blocked the addition of the question in January in response to a lawsuit from New York and 16 other states. Seeborg agreed that the citizenship question violated the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which prohibits federal agencies from acting in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. But he went further, finding that the question violated the Constitution itself, which requires the Census Bureau to undertake an “actual enumeration” of the total population.

“The record in this case has clearly established that including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public,” he wrote. “This question is, however, quite effective at depressing self-response rates among immigrants and noncitizens, and poses a significant risk of distorting the apportionment of congressional representation among the states.”

When the question was first announced, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, claimed it was necessary to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. But Seeborg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed that argument as “mere pretext” and called Ross’ push for the question “a cynical search to find some reason, any reason, or an agency request to justify that preordained result.” Ross’ decision “was arbitrary and capricious, represented an abuse of discretion, and was otherwise not in accordance with law,” he concluded.

The census determines how $880 billion in federal funding is allocated, how much representation states receive, and how political districts are drawn. A reduction in participation by Latinos and noncitizens would shift economic and political power away from those areas, like California, where they live. “The State of California demonstrated that it will suffer a loss of federal funding and face a substantial risk of losing political representation directly traceable to the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census,” Seeborg wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the citizenship question on April 23. Read Seeborg’s ruling here: 

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate