Trump administration asks Supreme Court to halt trial over census




  • In US
  • 2018-10-29 22:37:45Z
  • By By Andrew Chung
A general view of the U.
A general view of the U.  

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to postpone a trial set for Nov. 5 that will examine the legality of its decision to ask people taking part in the 2020 U.S. census whether they are citizens.

The administration is asking for the trial to be placed on hold until the Supreme Court resolves a dispute over evidence, including whether Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, whose department oversees the U.S. Census Bureau, can be forced to answer questions about the politically charged decision.

On Friday, Manhattan U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman, who will preside over the trial, and a federal appeals court both refused to postpone the trial.

Furman said a stay of the trial was not warranted and could hinder a final resolution of the case before the government begins printing the census forms next year.

The lawsuit, brought by 18 states and a number of cities and counties, was spearheaded by Democratic officials. It is consolidated with another suit by several immigrant rights groups accusing the administration of discrimination against non-white immigrants.

Critics of the citizenship question have said it will deter people in immigrant communities from participating in the census, disproportionately affecting Democratic-leaning states by undercounting the number of residents.

The administration has said it needs the data to enforce a voting rights law as it relates to minority voters.

Furman said in a Sept. 21 order that Ross must face a deposition by lawyers for the states because his "intent and credibility are directly at issue" in the lawsuit.

Furman said there was doubt about Ross' public statements that the Justice Department initiated the request to include the citizenship question and that he was not aware of any discussions with the White House about it.

But on Oct. 22, the Supreme Court blocked Ross' deposition and gave the administration until Monday to appeal the trial judge's orders.

The administration told the justices on Monday that there should be no trial into Ross' motives for adding the citizenship question, including whether he harbored "secret racial animus" in doing so.

"The harms to the government from such a proceeding are self-evident," the government said.

The U.S. Constitution mandates a census every 10 years. It is used in the allocation of seats in Congress and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal funds. A citizenship question has not appeared on the census since 1950.


(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Peter Cooney)

COMMENTS

More Related News

War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
  • US
  • 2019-02-22 12:42:06Z

There was nothing about it that made me think it was anything other than a Christian cross," Edwords, 70, said in an interview. Edwords and two other plaintiffs filed a 2014 lawsuit challenging the cross as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and bars governmental actions favoring one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause's scope is a matter of dispute, most Supreme Court experts predict the challenge to the Peace Cross will fail, with the justices potentially setting a new precedent allowing greater government involvement in religious expression.

Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.
Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court considers whether a Latin cross to honor World War I dead violates the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing "excessive fines" on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight of the nine justices, argued that state and local governments unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines clause are likely to abuse their power."For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "Excessive fines...

U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on
U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on 'excessive fines'
  • US
  • 2019-02-20 15:40:13Z

The nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs who argued that police violated his rights by seizing his $42,000 Land Rover vehicle after he was convicted as a heroin dealer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench for a second straight day after undergoing lung cancer surgery in December, wrote the court's opinion, which clarified the applicability of the "excessive fines" prohibition contained in the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. "For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.