This case is one of many ongoing cases around the country challenging the Census Bureau's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census. This lawsuit challenging the citizenship question was filed on April 11, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, by seven US citizens who regularly use public services. The case was assigned to District Judge George Jarrod Hazel.

The plaintiffs sued the Commerce Secretary, the Deputy Commerce Secretary, the United States Department of Commerce and its agency, the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau’s Director, and its Deputy Director.

The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sued the defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Declaratory Judgments Act, alleging that the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census would violate the APA and the Census Clauses of the Constitution (the "Actual Enumeration" clause of Article I, § 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment's "Apportionment Clause").

Plaintiffs alleged that that the Census Bureau’s decision to include a citizenship question on the Census would violate the Census clauses because the question would cause a disproportionate undercount of immigrants, non-citizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin. This disproportionate undercount would deprive plaintiffs of representation in congressional, state, and local governing bodies, and access to social services whose funding is based on the Census.

The plaintiffs also argued that the Bureau’s failure to provide independent support for their position that the citizenship data was required to enforce the Voting Rights Act, and their failure to investigate the impact the citizenship question may have on response rates, was “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, requesting the Court enjoin defendants from asking a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. They also sought attorneys’ fees.

On May 3, September 5, and December 28 of 2018 plaintiffs filed amended complaints. The last amended complaint differed from the original complaint by adding several more plaintiffs and an allegation that the in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Guarantee.

The plaintiffs further alleged that the decision to include the citizenship question violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee because it was motivated by animus towards Latinos, Asian-Americans, immigrant communities of color, and noncitizens.

Defendants moved to dismiss this case on June 6, 2018. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the political question doctrine barred their claims regarding violations of the Actual Enumeration and Apportionment Clauses; and that courts cannot review the Secretary’s decision under the APA. On August 22, 2018 Judge Hazel denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had standing, that the Secretary’s actions were reviewable, and that the political question doctrine did not bar the claims. 336 F.Supp.3d 545 (D. Md. 2018). In the same order denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Hazel granted plaintiffs’ motion for discovery, requiring that the defendants provide the same discovery as defendant’s were ordered to provide in another lawsuit over the 2020 Census, State of New York. v. United States Department of Commerce (Docket No. 18-cv-2921).

After Judge Hazel denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, they filed a motion for summary judgment on November 12, 2018. On December 19, 2018, Judge Hazel denied their motion for summary judgment as well.

Ruling on a joint motion, Judge Hazel consolidated this case with a very similar case, La Unión Del Pueblo Entero v. Ross (Docket No. 8:18-cv-1041), on December 19. For more information about that case, please see the case which is also in this Clearinghouse.

After preliminary evidentiary objections were ruled on by Judge Hazel, the bench trial in this matter began on January 22, 2019. The trial and case is still ongoing.

Michael Beech - 02/22/2019


compress summary