[EL] Census case

Thu Jun 27 09:22:02 PDT 2019

The Maryland case is still live, but there is no need to issue an urgent
injunction now because the Court remanded the New York case. I think
discovery could still proceed, unless the Court stays that decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Blackman
http://JoshBlackman.com
*Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare
<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1610393287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1610393287&linkCode=as2&tag=joshblaccom-20>*
*Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, & Executive Power*
<http://amzn.to/2aqbDwy>

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

> I disagree, and think the case is still live.
>
> I’ve got a piece posting to Slate in a few minutes making this point.
>
>
>
> *From: *Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on
> behalf of "Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Date: *Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:17 AM
> *To: *"Brunell, Thomas" <tbrunell at utdallas.edu>
> *Cc: *Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject: *[EL] Census case
>
>
>
> I have seen journalists saying that the EP litigation in MD on the Census
> case will now go forward.  I would think today’s decision instead moots
> that litigation.  The citizenship question cannot now be added to the
> Census form.  There is no longer a live issue in front of those courts.
>
>
>
> IF the Commerce Department does determine again to add a citizenship
> question and does provide a new and different rationale for doing so, then
> that decision will of course be litigated.  And plaintiffs might argue that
> the “new” citizenship question rests on a discriminatory purpose.  In
> addition, they might well seek to show that the original decision itself
> rested on a discriminatory purpose, and that the “new” question is tainted
> by the prior one.
>
>
>
> But that’s all for future litigation.  The pending case on the “old”
> question in MD is now moot.  Do other disagree with that analysis?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> *From:* Brunell, Thomas [mailto:tbrunell at utdallas.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 12:07 PM
> *To:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Cc:* Trevor Potter <tpotter at capdale.com>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan
> gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable
>
>
>
> The fact that he mentions there are approximately the same number of
> constituents in each district clearly indicates he is talking about
> everyone.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Brunell, Ph.D.
> Professor of Political Science
> School of Economic, Political and Policy Science
> UT Dallas
> 800 W. Campbell Road
> Richardson, TX 75080
> (972) 883-4963
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I think the instinct – and I call it that, an instinct, not necessarily a
> thought-through position -- behind the statement is that anyone in your
> district is a constituent.  He certainly could have used “voters” or
> “eligible voters” or “citizens.”  I don’t think legislative offices turn
> away resident aliens who seek assistance, for example, because they are not
> “constituents.”
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Rick
>
>
>
> Richard H. Pildes
>
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
>
> NYU School of Law
>
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
>
> NYC, NY 10012
>
> 212 998-6377
>
>
>
> *From:* Trevor Potter [mailto:tpotter at capdale.com <tpotter at capdale.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 27, 2019 11:57 AM
> *To:* Pildes, Rick <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan
> gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable
>
>
>
> How do you think he defines “ constituents”?
>
> Trevor Potter
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 5:34 PM, Pildes, Rick <
> rick.pildes at nyu.edu<mailto:rick.pildes at nyu.edu>> wrote:
>
> In describing the one-person, one-vote doctrine, CJ Roberts says: “each
> representative must be accountable to (approximately) the same number of
> constituents (my emphasis).
>
> If states/localities ever do redistrict based on eligible voters rather
> than population, I am sure that line will be quoted extensively.
>
> Best,
> Rick
>
> Richard H. Pildes
> Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law
> NYU School of Law
> 40 Washington Sq. So.
> NYC, NY 10012
> 212 998-6377
>
> From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>] On Behalf Of Adam Bonin
> Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2019 10:58 AM
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan
> gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable
>
> I'm not sure that's even an option. District court already determined that
> Commerce had never offered other reasons, and remanded just to confirm that
> Commerce had general jurisdiction to run the Census. See pp 266-70.
> https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/2019-01-15-574-Findings%20Of%20Fact.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=-GeSXw67sotv25U19eXvb00wdCy7Qan56cOs8AQnRs8&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.brennancenter.org_sites_default_files_legal-2Dwork_2019-2D01-2D15-2D574-2DFindings-2520Of-2520Fact.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=LbJENb2EllxoCgCoJ2HVRc8NEUPigx0yk1vjzx_rQuE&e=
> >
>
> in short, wrote Judge Furman:
>
> Remand, meanwhile, is appropriate as well, in recognition of the fact that
> Congress delegated its authority over administration of the census to the
> Secretary of Commerce, not to this Court. That is not to say that
> Defendants can or would be able to remedy the defects in Secretary Ross’s
> decision that this Court has found in time for the 2020 census. But to the
> extent that a “remand” is even necessary to make clear that the Secretary
> of Commerce retains authority to make decisions about the census, so long
> as they are consistent with law and this Court’s Opinion, a remand is
> appropriate.
>
> The parties’ respective arguments for an alternative remedy are
> unpersuasive. For their part, Defendants contend that remand without
> vacatur is “the only potentially appropriate remedy.” Defs.’ Post-Trial Br.
> 83-85, ¶¶ 80-85. Putting aside whether such a remedy is consistent with the
> plain language of the APA, it is inappropriate here. Courts authorizing
> remand without vacatur have done so where the agency shows “at least a
> serious possibility that [it] will be able to substantiate its decision on
> remand” and that “the consequences of vacating may be quite disruptive.”
> Allied-Signal, Inc., 988 F.2d at 151. Defendants have done neither here.
> The problem with Secretary Ross’s decision was not that it was inadequately
> explained, but rather that it was substantively arbitrary and capricious
> and “not in accordance” with statutes that constrain his discretion. And as
> Plaintiffs correctly point out, “the Secretary has never suggested an
> alternative basis for his decision.” Pls.’ Proposed Conclusions ¶ 456.
> Notably, Defendants offer nothing more than a bare conclusory assertion
> that “there is a non-trivial likelihood that the agency will be able to
> state a valid legal basis for its decision” on remand. Defs.’ Post-Trial
> Br. 84, ¶ 83 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Nothing in
> either the Administrative Record or the trial record even remotely suggests
> such a “likelihood.”
>
>
>
> Adam C. Bonin
> The Law Office of Adam C. Bonin
> 121 S. Broad Street, Suite 400
> Philadelphia, PA 19107
>
> (267) 242-5014 (c)
> (215) 701-2321 (f)
> adam at boninlaw.com<mailto:adam at boninlaw.com>
> http://www.boninlaw.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=5nw5r1b3sb3G1JWIhiJ2DVgax61Ueo6qdXgCirhxC_I&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.boninlaw.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=mkbb2G-jkLnGJBJzMr2UJfXbYH-VB1McmVMLmemoMmc&e=
> >
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 10:41 AM Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
> Here’s the link to the opinion:
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-966_bq7c.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=qAtiZ17eMvJ732Di9_JC-OXYV_cslaKSgM-4-GQ6f88&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D966-5Fbq7c.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=DQFA1sOXdJTscTCfjVf3QhCvds4_JOEHcXdAO6GhZfw&e=
> >
>
> Question is whether agency can come up with another explanation in time
>
>
> From: Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu>>
> Date: Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> Subject: Re: [EL] Breaking: Supreme Court, on 5-4 vote, holds partisan
> gerrymandering cases nonjusticiable
>
> Census case got remanded on the grounds that the VRA enforcement rationale
> can’t support the decision to ask the citizenship question.
> Pam Karlan
> Stanford Law School
> karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu>
> 650.725.4851
>
> On Jun 27, 2019, at 7:12 AM, Rick Hasen <
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>> wrote:
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=85g-hGm03JlLwImwB0lIr3OygRx-c5p1rQQZLSzCh1o&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.supremecourt.gov_opinions_18pdf_18-2D422-5F9ol1.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=a5OruKQ5Zhuzhye4Ja03XDcbASkb58d_KokAg8GKjq4&e=
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=zTd4EHeAUAprQTknF2BB2QppjQqw3XuVIMd60E4jnL0&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.law.uci.edu_faculty_full-2Dtime_hasen_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=ef5XEfzfYm0obGPKIqVRNXtdfwPdV0BRj4e9n6QP45c&e=
> >
> http://electionlawblog.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=X__JGNarEx4GYxGTlRTwNqCCdY419n39Bzxu4enQMto&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__electionlawblog.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=AiYhbBnmopseHn2mTsS73PXVVdL_3d1NC2XHKrmkikQ&e=
> >
> <image001.png>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> >
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> >
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>
> <
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=RA3I3ICHNYmQJtNUZWXLidhEuR_Mc_PixfOfW1tqM_4&s=N3xF4k3FuHKq0_dTIPnYeg7QSieM43kv-RMW84edEn4&e=
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
>
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> >
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMFaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=u8t00AvRASWqjrPm3xcP6xNWK7zXurfDOqrkC6XFzHc&s=kuPf1P2mC5tDj4PLhfedwmUTgMbR9zv3Swwmas0ZlSU&e=>
>
>
>
> <image001.png>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=v3oz9bpMizgP1T8KwLv3YT-_iypxaOkdtbkRAclgHRk&m=ZuOBw7haaSQ5Hm_kmav-ZfhcbMssiV7fPMd9Z76KTPg&s=c1YBiUsY1_c_YbU1EF7vleIjfBKQWTHVdyHAPcASh9M&e=>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/2c5ca9c4/attachment.html>