WEBVTT - Judge Blocks Trump Citizenship Question on 2020 Census

0:00:03.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.120 --> 0:00:09.680
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:09.720 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:16.160
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud

0:00:16.280 --> 0:00:19.720
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. In a highly

0:00:19.760 --> 0:00:23.560
<v Speaker 1>anticipated ruling, a federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's

0:00:23.560 --> 0:00:27.120
<v Speaker 1>plan to put a question about citizenship on the It's

0:00:27.480 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>In a two seventy seven page opinion, Judge Jesse Furman

0:00:30.880 --> 0:00:34.160
<v Speaker 1>said that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross violated the law

0:00:34.240 --> 0:00:37.720
<v Speaker 1>and the public trust in putting that question on the census.

0:00:38.240 --> 0:00:41.080
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Thomas Wolfe, counsel with the Brennan Center's

0:00:41.240 --> 0:00:45.239
<v Speaker 1>Democracy Program. Thomas, it is a long opinion. Can you

0:00:45.280 --> 0:00:48.720
<v Speaker 1>give us the main reasons? Judge Furman said he blocked

0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:52.159
<v Speaker 1>the question. You're right, it was a long opinion and

0:00:52.200 --> 0:00:55.640
<v Speaker 1>it's hot off the presses. But here's the general takeaway.

0:00:56.240 --> 0:00:58.440
<v Speaker 1>We know that under federal law, in this case, it's

0:00:58.440 --> 0:01:03.760
<v Speaker 1>the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies are supposed to have rational, intelligent,

0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:08.720
<v Speaker 1>evidence based, and logical reasons for making the decisions they

0:01:08.720 --> 0:01:11.960
<v Speaker 1>make when they exercise their powers and that they make

0:01:12.000 --> 0:01:15.760
<v Speaker 1>all of those decisions clear in the representations to the public.

0:01:16.040 --> 0:01:18.640
<v Speaker 1>What Judge Furman said was, if you look at the

0:01:18.640 --> 0:01:22.240
<v Speaker 1>paperwork on all the decisions made by Secretary Ross to

0:01:22.280 --> 0:01:26.319
<v Speaker 1>add the citizenship question, he flew in the face of

0:01:26.440 --> 0:01:30.160
<v Speaker 1>the evidence that his own agency at the Census Bureau,

0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:33.800
<v Speaker 1>had compiled. He created a pretext for adding the question,

0:01:33.920 --> 0:01:36.640
<v Speaker 1>meaning the reason why he claimed he added the question

0:01:36.680 --> 0:01:39.440
<v Speaker 1>wasn't the real reason he added the question, and that

0:01:39.480 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>he violated all these different rules that are put in

0:01:42.280 --> 0:01:46.800
<v Speaker 1>place to make sure that when the government makes decisions

0:01:46.840 --> 0:01:50.040
<v Speaker 1>on our behalf, it makes some on the basis of

0:01:50.200 --> 0:01:53.840
<v Speaker 1>clear evidence, and they violated all those rules. Did the

0:01:53.960 --> 0:01:58.280
<v Speaker 1>judge specifically address the plaintiff's claim and the claim of

0:01:58.360 --> 0:02:01.080
<v Speaker 1>advocates at the real intent of the question was to

0:02:01.200 --> 0:02:06.000
<v Speaker 1>intimidate illegal immigrants from answering and depress their official numbers

0:02:06.000 --> 0:02:09.320
<v Speaker 1>in the census. But Judge Furman noted on that point

0:02:09.400 --> 0:02:12.600
<v Speaker 1>was that there's still an open question about why Secretary

0:02:12.639 --> 0:02:17.360
<v Speaker 1>Ross ultimately decided to add the citizenship questions. Secretary Ross

0:02:17.480 --> 0:02:19.520
<v Speaker 1>claimed that the reason why he was doing it was

0:02:19.560 --> 0:02:22.200
<v Speaker 1>to help enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, but the

0:02:22.240 --> 0:02:25.520
<v Speaker 1>evidence showed that that clearly was not the reason why

0:02:25.680 --> 0:02:27.959
<v Speaker 1>he decided to make that decision. In fact, that was

0:02:28.080 --> 0:02:31.040
<v Speaker 1>pure pretext, and Judge Furman described that as a sort

0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:36.119
<v Speaker 1>of laundering of some other intent. What Judge Furman noted, though,

0:02:36.160 --> 0:02:38.440
<v Speaker 1>was that there wasn't enough evidence in the record to

0:02:38.520 --> 0:02:42.120
<v Speaker 1>conclude that the question was at it for discriminatory purposes.

0:02:42.639 --> 0:02:45.320
<v Speaker 1>At the same time, though, he said, had the plaintiffs

0:02:45.360 --> 0:02:48.560
<v Speaker 1>been able to depose Secretary Ross, that is, get him

0:02:48.600 --> 0:02:50.960
<v Speaker 1>up on the stand and ask him questions under oath,

0:02:51.360 --> 0:02:53.320
<v Speaker 1>they might have been able to get at the real reason.

0:02:53.480 --> 0:02:56.040
<v Speaker 1>So the gist of it is on the basis of

0:02:56.080 --> 0:03:00.200
<v Speaker 1>Judge Furman's opinion that we don't know exactly why the

0:03:00.280 --> 0:03:04.880
<v Speaker 1>Census Bureau decided to add this question, and specifically Secretary

0:03:04.960 --> 0:03:08.400
<v Speaker 1>Ross decided to add this question, but it certainly is

0:03:08.440 --> 0:03:11.079
<v Speaker 1>not because of any interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act.

0:03:11.960 --> 0:03:14.840
<v Speaker 1>Was there any other defense put up by the Justice

0:03:14.840 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 1>Department besides that related to the Voting Rights Act? The

0:03:18.320 --> 0:03:22.280
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department hinged a lot of its defense on this

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:25.320
<v Speaker 1>notion that everything that was happening here was purely above

0:03:25.360 --> 0:03:29.840
<v Speaker 1>board and it was done to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

0:03:30.600 --> 0:03:35.080
<v Speaker 1>They argued though in a a lot of their papers.

0:03:35.080 --> 0:03:37.840
<v Speaker 1>But something that Judge Furman disposed it very quickly was

0:03:37.920 --> 0:03:40.880
<v Speaker 1>that it wouldn't matter as Secretary Ross had some other

0:03:40.960 --> 0:03:44.920
<v Speaker 1>reason for adding the question, as long as his stated reason,

0:03:45.000 --> 0:03:50.280
<v Speaker 1>the Voting Rights Act rationale was legit. As Judge Furman said,

0:03:50.440 --> 0:03:53.200
<v Speaker 1>that doesn't hold water. That's not the way agencies should work.

0:03:53.560 --> 0:03:56.040
<v Speaker 1>They shouldn't have secret reasons for doing what they're doing

0:03:56.040 --> 0:03:59.200
<v Speaker 1>that they hide behind fake reasons that they give out

0:03:59.200 --> 0:04:01.680
<v Speaker 1>to the public. So dj wasn't able to succeed on

0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:05.360
<v Speaker 1>that front. There are several lawsuits to block the question.

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:09.280
<v Speaker 1>How does this opinion by a New York federal judge

0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.960
<v Speaker 1>fit In? This opinion lays out a very clear roadmap

0:04:13.080 --> 0:04:15.560
<v Speaker 1>for the judges in the other cases that are currently

0:04:15.560 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 1>depending in California and Maryland. They're not legally bound to

0:04:19.120 --> 0:04:23.160
<v Speaker 1>follow Judge Furman's decision, but this decision is so thorough,

0:04:23.800 --> 0:04:27.880
<v Speaker 1>incredibly well reasoned, and in many cases overlaps with issues

0:04:27.880 --> 0:04:30.800
<v Speaker 1>that are raised in those cases that it's difficult to

0:04:30.839 --> 0:04:34.440
<v Speaker 1>see these other courts arriving at alternative decisions. So I

0:04:34.480 --> 0:04:37.159
<v Speaker 1>would say at this point, the challengers the question have

0:04:37.279 --> 0:04:39.520
<v Speaker 1>the wind at their back. They have real momentum. Now,

0:04:39.880 --> 0:04:42.720
<v Speaker 1>now let's talk about the Supreme Court, which is hearing

0:04:42.760 --> 0:04:46.000
<v Speaker 1>an appeal related to the trial in February. Has considered

0:04:46.360 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>some aspects of it. Is it likely that the Supreme

0:04:49.320 --> 0:04:51.159
<v Speaker 1>Court is going to have the final word on the

0:04:51.200 --> 0:04:55.080
<v Speaker 1>citizenship question. It's hard to say exactly how the Supreme

0:04:55.120 --> 0:04:58.839
<v Speaker 1>Court appeal process is going to play out because the

0:04:58.880 --> 0:05:01.839
<v Speaker 1>Department of Justice has repeatedly said that it needs a

0:05:01.880 --> 0:05:06.039
<v Speaker 1>final decision before June this year, and that's when the

0:05:06.120 --> 0:05:08.840
<v Speaker 1>census forms have to start going to the printer. That

0:05:08.920 --> 0:05:12.039
<v Speaker 1>leaves us with a very compressed time frame. So it's

0:05:12.040 --> 0:05:15.120
<v Speaker 1>almost likely that there will be an appeal. How exactly

0:05:15.120 --> 0:05:18.400
<v Speaker 1>that plays out not abundantly clear at the moment. That

0:05:18.440 --> 0:05:21.360
<v Speaker 1>should become clear in the next few weeks. But along

0:05:21.400 --> 0:05:23.679
<v Speaker 1>and short of it is that the Supreme Court should

0:05:23.760 --> 0:05:26.960
<v Speaker 1>have a ruling in this case that will serve as

0:05:27.000 --> 0:05:29.839
<v Speaker 1>the final ruling before the end of its term, which

0:05:29.880 --> 0:05:33.440
<v Speaker 1>happens at the end of June. Is June really a

0:05:33.440 --> 0:05:37.000
<v Speaker 1>hard and fast deadline or can that be moved? The

0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:41.320
<v Speaker 1>census is a very delicate process that requires everything being

0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:44.120
<v Speaker 1>done in a certain sequence at a certain time. So

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:49.599
<v Speaker 1>the Department of Justice and the Commerce Department have repeatedly

0:05:49.640 --> 0:05:53.400
<v Speaker 1>emphasized that June is about as close to a hard

0:05:53.440 --> 0:05:56.559
<v Speaker 1>deadline as you're going to get, and in that case,

0:05:56.600 --> 0:05:58.240
<v Speaker 1>it seems like the courts are taking them at their

0:05:58.279 --> 0:06:01.400
<v Speaker 1>word and will move forward on that basis. Now, what's

0:06:01.440 --> 0:06:04.240
<v Speaker 1>happening on the ground, so to speak, with the Census Bureau? Now,

0:06:04.480 --> 0:06:07.320
<v Speaker 1>are they checking out how the questions are going, Are

0:06:07.320 --> 0:06:09.520
<v Speaker 1>they doing any kind of testing or is it all

0:06:09.560 --> 0:06:13.159
<v Speaker 1>on hold because of the lawsuits the bureau? And I

0:06:13.160 --> 0:06:15.920
<v Speaker 1>think an important thing to emphasize here that comes out

0:06:15.920 --> 0:06:19.000
<v Speaker 1>of Judge Freman's opinion is that the people that work

0:06:19.040 --> 0:06:21.839
<v Speaker 1>at the Census Bureau are in many cases the lifetime

0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:24.359
<v Speaker 1>professionals who are really dedicated to making sure the Census

0:06:24.360 --> 0:06:26.600
<v Speaker 1>goes off about a hitch. Not a lot of what's

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:30.640
<v Speaker 1>happened with the citizenship question was the result of folks

0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:33.720
<v Speaker 1>at the Commerce Department overwriding what the Census Bureau would

0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:36.440
<v Speaker 1>have preferred to do, given that it looks like this

0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:40.719
<v Speaker 1>citizenship question up until Judge Freman's ruling was something that

0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:43.400
<v Speaker 1>the administration wanted. There was already word that they were

0:06:43.400 --> 0:06:46.799
<v Speaker 1>going to begin testing to see what kind of effects

0:06:46.839 --> 0:06:49.880
<v Speaker 1>the question would have. They're also analyzing the results of

0:06:49.920 --> 0:06:52.520
<v Speaker 1>the one field test that was done in Rhode Island

0:06:53.080 --> 0:06:58.159
<v Speaker 1>earlier in to see what effects um the environment of

0:06:58.240 --> 0:07:02.000
<v Speaker 1>fear around adding the citizenship question may have. So there

0:07:02.000 --> 0:07:03.760
<v Speaker 1>may be work going on right now to try to

0:07:03.800 --> 0:07:08.400
<v Speaker 1>triage the damage. But hopefully moving forward, the citizenship question

0:07:08.440 --> 0:07:11.880
<v Speaker 1>will not be on the census and the Census Bureau

0:07:11.920 --> 0:07:14.480
<v Speaker 1>will no longer have to plan and prepare for that.

0:07:15.000 --> 0:07:17.480
<v Speaker 1>Some conservatives say this kind of question has been on

0:07:17.520 --> 0:07:20.400
<v Speaker 1>the census before, why shouldn't it be on the census now.

0:07:20.480 --> 0:07:23.320
<v Speaker 1>So in just about a minute, tell us why any

0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:28.640
<v Speaker 1>representations that the Census has had a two year consistent

0:07:28.760 --> 0:07:31.840
<v Speaker 1>history of asking about the citizenship question is misleading. Where

0:07:31.880 --> 0:07:35.360
<v Speaker 1>it is not completely false, these questions have appeared only

0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:38.760
<v Speaker 1>in a sporadic sense through the nineteenth century, at a

0:07:38.800 --> 0:07:41.920
<v Speaker 1>time when the Census Bureau wasn't even a professional practice.

0:07:41.960 --> 0:07:46.119
<v Speaker 1>In fact, the Census Bureau didn't even exist. After fifty

0:07:46.200 --> 0:07:48.600
<v Speaker 1>when the Census Bureau had actually developed the ability to

0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:51.600
<v Speaker 1>see how well or how badly it was doing the

0:07:51.680 --> 0:07:55.160
<v Speaker 1>job of counting everyone, they discovered that these kinds of

0:07:55.280 --> 0:07:58.920
<v Speaker 1>very long census forms that included things like the citizenship question,

0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:02.360
<v Speaker 1>or actually we in them to be constitutionally deficient in

0:08:02.440 --> 0:08:04.640
<v Speaker 1>counting everyone. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you

0:08:04.720 --> 0:08:07.240
<v Speaker 1>so much times for being on. That's Thomas Wolfe, counsel

0:08:07.240 --> 0:08:12.080
<v Speaker 1>with the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. Thanks for listening to

0:08:12.080 --> 0:08:15.440
<v Speaker 1>the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to

0:08:15.440 --> 0:08:19.200
<v Speaker 1>the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot

0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:27.240
<v Speaker 1>com slash podcast. I'm June Grasso. This is Bloomberg Ye