[EL] Census case

Thu Jun 27 09:37:47 PDT 2019

I don't disagree with the substantive analysis in Rick Hasen's Slate piece (
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/john-roberts-trump-census-question-supreme-court-october.html),
but I don't think it answers Rick Pildes's procedural question.  Right now
there's no citizenship question to enjoin, so there's no live controversy
in the Maryland case.  If the administration makes a new decision to add a
citizenship question, then there will be a live controversy (in which APA
and equal protection issues will presumably be litigated).  I don't see
anything in the Slate piece that addresses the procedural point.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:27 PM Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com>
wrote:

> An injunction may yet be proper, but not one issued today or tomorrow (as
> I anticipated). The government would first have to propose a new
> justification, which could then be enjoined.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 11:25 AM Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>> Strongly disagree on that point. A separate injunction barring the
>> inclusion of the question will be necessary in the event the Commerce Dept
>> tries to come back with a new reason for including the question.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Josh Blackman <joshblackman at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Thursday, June 27, 2019 at 9:23 AM
>> *To: *Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
>> *Cc: *"Pildes, Rick" <rick.pildes at nyu.edu>, "Brunell, Thomas" <
>> tbrunell at utdallas.edu>, Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] Census case
>>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
Samuel Bagenstos
sbagen at gmail.com
Twitter: @sbagen
University of Michigan homepage:
http://www.law.umich.edu/FacultyBio/Pages/FacultyBio.aspx?FacID=sambagen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20190627/d65d4281/attachment.html>