The “breaking news” yesterday on my iPhone and computer included a welcome report about the coming census. As most of you are undoubtedly aware, Wilbur Ross wanted to add a question about citizenship that was widely seen as an effort to depress Hispanic response.
Since funding for a wide number of programs is based upon population, an undercount would really hurt cities and states with high percentages of Hispanics. I’m sure its just coincidental that those places tend to vote Democratic.
In a 277-page opinion, the federal court ruled the question could not be asked.
David Schultz, a colleague who holds joint appointments at Hamline and the University of Minnesota law school, posted a brief summary of the decision on the Law and Courts listserv in which we both participate. (Yes, I am an incredibly nerdy person…)
The Court concluded that the explanations offered–the purported reasons for adding the question–were pretextual.
“First, the Court concludes that Secretary Ross ignored and violated a clear statutory duty to rely on administrative records (rather than direct inquiries) to the “maximum extent possible,” 13 U.S.C. § 6©, rendering his decision “not in accordance with law,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Second, even if that statute did not exist, Secretary Ross’s decision to add a citizenship question rather than collect citizenship data through more effective and less costly means was “not supported by the reasons [he] adduce[d],” Service, 522 U.S. at 374, making it “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of Section 706(A). Third, although a closer question, the Court finds that Secretary Ross failed to satisfy the statutory requirement that he report any plan to address the subject of citizenship to Congress at least three years before the decennial census, in violation of Title 13, United States Code, Section 141(f)(1). And fourth, the Court concludes that Secretary Ross’s decision was pretextual — that the rationale he provided for his decision was not his real rationale.”
An even more interesting part of the decision was the court’s review of the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. As David wrote,
What most struck me about the opinion were two major points. First, and I argued this from day one of the Trump administration, their lack of skill and knowledge about the government (including the Constitution, the law, and process and procedure), would eventually lead to many administrative decisions being struck down in the courts. This is an example of that. The court describes in detail how Ross just ignored the law and thought he was acting like the CEO of a company where he could do whatever he wanted. He ignored the law, reporting requirements, and also sought to cover up decisions.
The second major point was how DOJ attorneys effectively conceded much of the case to the plaintiffs…
Because Ross simply ignored applicable legal requirements, he left the DOJ attorneys with virtually no arguments to counter the charges of illegality. (Lawyers who’ve been put in this position by clients who are willful or stupid–or both– can relate.) According to David, “The judge was simply devastating in detailing Ross’ willful disobedience of the law and the inability of the attorneys to defend his actions.”
This administration is doing incalculable harm. Every day is a new outrage, a new assault on the environment, public eduction, the rule of law…not to mention sanity and common decency. This case is a wonderful reminder that–as much damage as this band of looters and thugs is doing–it would be a lot worse if they weren’t reincarnations of the Keystone Kops.
Then there’s the Trump effect. Normally working for the president of the United States is a career booster, something that looks good on your résumé. Trump’s presidency, however, is so chaotic, corrupt and potentially compromised by his foreign entanglements that anyone associated with him gets tainted — which is why after only two years he has already left a trail of broken men and wrecked reputations in his wake.
So who is willing to serve him at this point? Only those with no reputation to lose, generally because they’re pretty bad at what they do. There are, no doubt, conservatives smart and self-controlled enough to lie plausibly, or at least preserve some deniability, and defend Trump’s policies without making fools of themselves. But those people have gone into hiding.
I never thought I’d be so grateful for incompetence.