Monday, July 01, 2019

Pretext and Remedy in the Census Case and Beyond

by Michael C. Dorf (cross-posted on Take Care)

Here is (a slightly cleaned up version of) what I tweeted in the minutes after I quickly read the Supreme Court's census opinion on Thursday of last week:
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledges the very strong evidence that enforcement of the Voting Rights Act was not the real reason for Trump/Ross adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census. So the Court approves the remand to the agency. That's good. But it is not clear what happens next. When a court remands a case to an agency because the agency did not comply with proper procedures, the agency is permitted to reach the same conclusion by dotting the i's and crossing the t's. 
Pretext is different, however. The Roberts opinion already says that the agency COULD have added the citizenship question for legitimate reasons. And we can be sure that the Trump administration will claim to be doing just that. But EVERYONE KNOWS that the political impact will still be the real reason. 
Based on the Travel Ban litigation, there is reason to fear that the SCOTUS will uphold the citizenship question after the administration "lawyers it up" better. The main difference is that in the Travel Ban case, the Court never actually found pretext. Here it has. And while an otherwise legitimate decision found to be pretextual should not be forever barred, where only a few months (at most) will pass, and the motives remain the same, a new determination to include the citizenship question should be viewed with extreme skepticism.
After a couple of disclaimers about timing that are specific to this particular case, I want to say a few words about a general remedial problem posed by any rule of law that says that an action that could be lawfully taken for some reasons cannot be taken for some other reasons.

The case poses a number of timing issues, because the government has heretofore insisted that it would have to send census forms to the printer by roughly today. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs had been saying the real deadline is early October. We can now expect the parties to reverse positions on the timing question. The plaintiffs will say that the government should be estopped from delaying further; with insufficient time for the Census Bureau to jump through whatever hoops it would need to jump through in order to tell a more persuasive lie about why it is adding the citizenship question, the forms should be printed without it. Meanwhile, the government will confess error and say that the plaintiffs were right all along; printing can wait until October.

Further complicating the timing question is the president's tweet suggesting that the census should be delayed as long as necessary to get the citizenship question back on in a way that satisfies the Supreme Court, because, you know, Donald Trump is all about effective enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The hardest hard deadline is presumably the end of 2020, in order to comply with the constitutional obligation to conduct a decennial census. However, the real deadline for conducting the census is April 1, 2020, because that is set by a statute that the Democratic-controlled House certainly will not extend in order to help Trump under-count Democratic-leaning constituencies.

Presumably, the administration was working with the April 1, 2020 deadline when it told the Supreme Court that it needed to start printing on July 1, 2019. As noted above, it's possible that there's actually some wiggle room in the schedule, but there is not indefinite wiggle room. Meanwhile, Trump has no power to extend the April 1, 2020 deadline, so his tweet has one and only one impact: It serves as further evidence that the administration is determined to add the citizenship question, regardless of what the experts in the agency conclude. In other words, viewed rationally, Trump's tweet ought to undercut his legal case.

Whether it actually will have that impact depends on just what standards the courts use to evaluate the output of the Census Bureau, should it jump through the proper hoops and conclude that yes indeed, a citizenship question should be included for reasons having nothing to do with suppressing the count and thus the representation of Democratic-leaning constituencies. Yet it remains unclear exactly what kind of process or showing would suffice.

The Court allowed that the evidence fit a narrow exception to the general proposition that the existence of mixed motives does not invalidate an otherwise permissible agency action. That exception applies to such bad faith that the agency cannot be said to have disclosed the actual basis for its challenged action. And that is what the district court and ultimately the Supreme Court found. CJ Roberts wrote for the Court that "viewing the evidence as a whole, we share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA."

What happens now? Here's the crucial passage of the SCOTUS opinion:
the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition.  ... We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably. Reasoned decisionmaking under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.
Is there anything that the agency can do that should satisfy the Court? The answer seems like a clear no. If the agency discloses what everyone knows to be the real reason for the addition of the citizenship question -- to help Republicans by undercounting the Latinx and nonwhite persons -- then the government will have solved one problem at the cost of creating another: It will have given the real reason but in so doing disclosed an equal protection violation.

But now we have a puzzle. Why did the Supreme Court (and the district court for that matter) remand to the agency at all, rather than simply forbid the use of the citizenship question? I will suggest two possibilities.

(1) Perhaps the Court is giving the Census Bureau the opportunity to purge the taint of Secretary Ross's illicit intent. How to purge the taint of an illicit motive is an under-developed question in the Court's jurisprudence, even though taint questions are increasingly prominent in the Court's work (as I discussed here, here, and here last Term in connection with the Travel Ban and other cases). But logic suggests a few propositions, which I'll set forth and then apply:

(a) A decision that could have been reached on legitimate grounds but in fact was reached on illegitimate grounds cannot simply be reinstated by the same person or body reaching the same decision and claiming that the second (or successive) version was taken for the right reason. Absent more, a court should view the same decision with skepticism.

(b) The passage of time can be the kind of "more" that purges taint. Justice Alito's decision in the Bladensburg Cross case implicitly applies this principle. Even if a monument is originally erected for religious purposes (which he does not concede in the particular case), many years later we cannot assume that the people who maintain the monument have the same motives. How much time must pass to activate this principle? Any line will be arbitrary, but any defensible line will be far longer than the period in which the administration will need to act in order to get the census case back to the SCOTUS in time to conduct the census.

(c) A change in administration could also be the kind of "more" that purges taint. But the kind of change needed here is beyond unlikely: Say, the impeachment and removal of Trump and Pence, leaving Nancy Pelosi as President and the realization of Census Bureau statisticians that, actually, the citizenship question will not substantially reduce the response rate. We can effectively dismiss this possibility.

(d) In rare circumstances, we can imagine that the same administration in a very short period of time should be permitted an action despite the fact that it previously attempted it for an illicit reason. Indeed, in the scenario I'm imagining, a court should approve even the original tainted action.

Suppose that a malevolent actor in South America raises a zombie army that begins a slow, shuffling march northward, killing all in their path. Military experts inform Congress and the President that a wall at the southern border will sufficiently slow the zombie's march to enable air power to finish them off. The President is not interested in zombies, but he signs the appropriation along with the following statement: "This beautiful wall will protect our country from dark-skinned people from shithole countries trying to steal our jobs. MAGA."

Trump's racist motive taints the wall as a violation of equal protection. Under the Arlington Heights test, a court would ask whether it would have been built even without the illicit motive. Here the answer is no: the illicit motive really is a but-for cause of the challenged action. Nonetheless, if the zombies are truly an existential threat (as I assume for purposes of my example), then the government can build it. Why? Because the illicit purpose is the equivalent of an express racial classification, but here there is a compelling interest and, if (as I also assume) the military experts are correct, building the wall is necessary to serve that compelling interest.

Returning from the realm of fantasy (the zombies, not the racist President, alas), this kind of an argument could have worked in the Travel Ban case if there were a sufficient showing of national security necessity. As the case actually was decided, however, the Court (erroneously in my view) simply deferred to the claim of national security rather than strictly scrutinizing it.

In the census case, there is no argument based on national security, so even if one thinks deference was appropriate in the Travel Ban case, it is not appropriate here. The taint raises the level of scrutiny; national security is not invoked to lower it again; the inclusion of the citizenship question must satisfy strict scrutiny; it cannot, because even if better enforcement of the Voting Rights Act is a compelling interest, given the evidence, the addition of the citizenship question (with its attendant results) is not narrowly tailored to achieve it.

Accordingly, none of the mechanisms that one might ordinarily think capable of purging the taint of an illicit motive appears to be in play in the census case. So we must consider an entirely different sort of explanation for the remand.

(2) Nowhere does the Chief Justice actually say that Ross's motive for including the census question was illicit. What he says is that the explanation--to enforce the VRA better--was not the actual reason. The remand is therefore for the purpose of allowing the administration to come up with a better explanation. That is why more than one commentator has characterized the remand as an opportunity for the administration to do a better job of lying.

Put differently, the administration might now try to create a record that shows that Ross was indeed interested in adding a citizenship question all along and not for enforcing the VRA but for some other legitimate purpose. But what legitimate purposes fits the evidence? There are really only two possibilities.

(a) More effective lying would invoke some vague notion of the importance of citizenship, compliance with UN standards (as Justice Alito discusses in his separate opinion), or some other reason that was not the real reason. But it is a genuine mystery how the Census Bureau could generate a record that would show that the real reason for the decision was anything other than Ross's and Trump's partisan aims.

(b) That brings me to the final, perhaps most dispiriting possibility: that CJ Roberts would be prepared to uphold the inclusion of the citizenship question if the administration simply admits that it was included for partisan reasons. In various places, the Roberts opinion says there's nothing wrong with political considerations influencing agency action, and he takes issue with Breyer's view that the agency should be guided by expertise, not politics.

To be sure, there is a difference between "political" in the sense of policy-based and in the sense of "partisan." The sources Roberts cites for the proposition that an agency can consider political matters use "political" in the former sense, but it is possible to imagine the administration offering a policy-sounding reason. After all, it is true that citizenship is important to this administration. Thus, it is possible that the administration could abandon the VRA charade and build a record for the proposition that it was interested in adding a citizenship question all along simply because it cares about how many citizens there are; and although that would be a lie, it is possible to imagine five justices then approving the question.

I hope that's not what's in store, but there really is nothing the administration can now do that ought to lead to approval of the citizenship question, so one can only worry that the Court has remanded for the purpose of allowing the Trump administration to get away with something. Again, I hope that worry proves unfounded, but in the last few years I find my that hopes frequently go unfulfilled.


Shag from Brookline said...

When a party is before SCOTUS with unclean hands, sometimes it contaminates SCOTUS.

Joe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe said...

So, the partisan gerrymander case will provide assistance?

There was an argument made that the usage of the question here violated the Enumeration Clause because it interferes with the count of persons (sic -- not citizens) as required. The majority rejected this argument, but the liberals did not join that section.

Breyer says in practice the question will interfere with an accurate count but his opinion does not expressly say it violates the clause. OTOH, that is a reasonable conclusion from his analysis as well as him not joining that section.

The question of a deadline shows in practice that sort of thing tends to be flexible. This is a reason why the alleged deadline in Bush v. Gore was so shoddy of an argument.

Joe said...

Another member of this blog flagged this article:

Historical Fiction at the Supreme Court: The justices misrepresented the “pedigree” of the citizenship question on the census.

Joseph said...

Good post - but isn't there an obvious policy purpose the citizenship question serves? Trump came to office with a major goal of controlling immigration. Quantifying the 'problem' by the broadest and bluntest means possible is typical Trump. I also think the Secretary would have believed that admitting the question would be used to facilitate the Administration's immigration policies could more seriously hurt response rates and would be harder to defend in court, though the Court's decision now puts many of those legal concerns to rest. Even if one thinks the question is also about reducing population counts, this policy purpose - whatever one thinks of it - looks pretty obvious.

Asher Steinberg said...

"Nowhere does the Chief Justice actually say that Ross's motive for including the census question was illicit. What he says is that the explanation--to enforce the VRA better--was not the actual reason. The remand is therefore for the purpose of allowing the administration to come up with a better explanation. That is why more than one commentator has characterized the remand as an opportunity for the administration to do a better job of lying."

That's also true of Judge Furman's decision, and of the district court's decision in Maryland. Indeed, it's *more* true of their decisions; they ruled against the plaintiffs on their animus-based equal-protection claims. This opinion doesn't opine on those claims. Yet I don't recall people complaining that Furman just remanded the matter to the agency so it could do a better job of lying. The response to his opinion, from people sympathetic to the plaintiffs, was wildly and universally glowing.

Michael C. Dorf said...

Asher: Perhaps the difference is explained by the fact that Judge Furman's decision did not also include two sections saying that it should be easy for Commerce to find another reason for adding a citizenship question. See Joshua Matz's piece today on Take Care:

Shag from Brookline said...

At Neil's earlier post I put up this comment:

Blogger Shag from Brookline said...
Query: In the Census Con case, did the Chief provide the Trump Administration with an advisory opinion, just in case the conservative 5 might call an emergency session to show that they have indeed been "TRUMPT"?

1:44 PM

Matz suggest the Chief may have issued an advisory opinion.

Imiya said...

Hermes handbags Luxury Genuine Leather Bags. If you have ever drooled over the gorgeous and exquisite Handbags available in any outlet, you would love to own one. The existing counterfeit Louis Vuitton Bags available in this website include classy and sophisticated Monogram Canvas leather handbags which come in colours like white, black, brown and blue. You can also choose from Rolex Watches of Kelly bags which come with more luxurious colours and designs.

Joe said...

Shag's "advisory opinion" comment reflects that many times the Supreme Court does basically do that. One of his favorite opinions, Scalia's opinion in D.C. v. Heller (guns), provides a partial list of presumptively acceptable gun regulations.

One gambit is for the Supreme Court to say "we are not saying this," which basically can provide an alternative means to do the same thing. Concurring and dissenting opinions often provide even more assistance.

Jim said...

Maybe Asher missed Judge Furman's observations upon ruling that the plaintiffs had failed to show that the citizenship question was motivated by a discriminatory purpose:

"To be fair, it is possible that Plaintiffs could have carried their burden on that score had they had access to sworn testimony from Secretary Ross himself. As Defendants concede, Secretary Ross's intent -- as the official decision-maker -- was crucial to the equal protection claim . . . . But Plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to depose Secretary Ross because the Supreme Court stayed this Court's Order authorizing such a deposition . . . ."

New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 351 F. Supp.3d 502, 671 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). There's also the fact that the equal protection claim wasn't before the Supreme Court, so Roberts didn't exercise any sort of restraint by not addressing it. But *besides* all this, and what Prof. Dorf has pointed out -- yes, it sure is bewildering why folks are criticizing the Chief Justice's opinion while praising the district court's ruling.

Reader One said...

It appears the administration has decided to accept the ruling and print the forms without the citizenship question. Like you, I would not have predicted this result -- I wonder if there was pushback within DOJ about the hit their credibility would take after all their pressing on the June 30 deadline at SCOTUS?

Shag from Brookline said...

Perhaps AG Barr might have been the pushback as he was not in DOJ at the time of the DOJ "request" for the citizenship question and did not want to be sucked in as he has a lot of other baggage of his own to account for Perhaps there are DOJ records on the subject that might be embarrassing. But does this leave the Chief hanging because he provided the Trump Administration with a possible get out of jail card. It's possible that Trump decided the Roberts roadmap might be a negative for his 2020 reelection campaign. Maybe there's a memo that a census undercount might negatively impact Trump in certain states. And Wilbur may have the willies. We need more conspiracy theories.

Shag from Brookline said...

Joshua Matz's interesting article that Mike reference included this in its first paragraph:

"Many of these articles and tweets have celebrated the Chief Justice for his bravery, principle, and (long-delayed) unwillingness to accept pretextual reasons for a Trump Administration policy. To hear them tell it, this decision was a huge win."

With this decision to forego the citizenship question, might the Chief accept such celebration as a win, or might he expect scorn from the dissenting conservative four? How comfortable might the Chief be with this decision to withdraw the question?

Michael C. Dorf said...

I must say I'm (pleasantly) surprised by the administration's decision. I could see how the SG would not want to change positions after having repeatedly told the Court that yesterday was a hard deadline, but I also could see the AG or Trump himself overruling that decision, because they don't really care about anyone else's (not to mention their own) credibility. Nonetheless, I'll happily take the W and thank the Chief Justice in the package.

Tracy Matt said...

heal from broken heart" I'm so excited my husband is back after he left me for another woman"contact to help you get your Ex lover back urgently after breakup/divorce" After 12years of marriage, me and my husband has been into one quarrel or the other until he finally left me and moved to California to be with another woman. I felt my life was over and my kids thought they would never see their father again. i tried to be strong just for the kids but i could not control the pains that torments my heart, my heart was filled with sorrows and pains because i was really in love with my husband. Every day and night i think of him and always wish he could come back to me, I was really worried and i needed help, so i searched for help online and I came across a website that suggested that Dr Unity can help get ex back fast. So, I felt I should give him a try. I contacted him and he told me what to do and i did it then he did a Love spell for me. 11hours later, my husband really called me and told me that he miss me and the kids so much, So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and the kids. Then from that day,our Marriage was now stronger than how it were before, All thanks to Dr Unity. he is so powerful and i decided to share my story on the internet that Dr.Unity is real spell caster who i will always pray to live long to help his children in the time of trouble, if you are here and you need your ex lover back or save your marriage fast. Do not cry anymore, contact this powerful spell caster Dr.Unity now. Here’s his contact,Email him at: or Call/WhatsApp him: +2348055361568 ,website: ,your kindness will never be forgotten.

Natasha Wanderly form USA.

Joe said...

Trump doesn't want to accept the citizenship question won't be on the census form and called it "FAKE" ... fellow Take Care member Leah Litman: "well shit."