Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.
The correct test is "rational basis," not "compelling reason." Otherwise, the Court can second guess every single decision made by the Executive Branch. Roberts seems to have sidestepped this test by finding that the government's explanation was "insufficient."
P.S. "At this late date" is (or should be) an irrelevant factor. The Court is not in charge of the U.S. Printing Office.
There was not rational basis given for it either.
and it is not just about the printing, the printing is the least of the concerns.
Things like the census are planned down to the most precise detail to get maximum response rates and the most accurate responses to the wording of the questions. They have been planning and laying out the next census since the last one ended.
Throwing in an extra question is far more complicated than it might be worth. Even Ross admits that it would decrease response rates and response rates play a huge part in accuracy of the data.
Didn't woody have this same conversation yesterday? And Roberts found the govt's stated reason was a pretext. He was not unclear.
I might have missed that one. Either way, this was the correct ruling based upon the laws and not partisan sheep herd mentality.
I think I was wrong and Woody is not just doing a do over. I apologize Woody. But here's the thing on Robert's reasoning.
Roberts and his conservative colleagues parted ways in the fifth and final – and ultimately dispositive – part of the court’s opinion. The district court had also ruled that Ross’ rationale for including the citizenship question – that the Department of Justice had asked for the data to better enforce federal voting-rights laws – was a pretext for its actual reasoning, and here Roberts, in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, agreed. “The evidence showed,” Roberts wrote, that Ross “was determined to reinstate a citizenship question from the time he entered office; instructed his staff to make it happen; waited while Commerce officials explored whether another agency would request census-based citizenship data; subsequently contacted the Attorney General himself to ask if DOJ would make the request; and adopted the Voting Rights Act rationale late in the process.” Taking that evidence in its entirety, Roberts determined, “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” Voting Rights Act.
Roberts acknowledged that courts should be “deferential” when reviewing an agency’s action, but he countered – citing Judge Henry Friendly, for whom he clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit – that “we are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.” And here, when “the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision,” judicial review calls for “something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case.” “In these unusual circumstances,” Roberts concluded, the district court was therefore correct to send the case back to the Department of Commerce for it to provide a better explanation. “Reasoned decisionmaking,” Roberts emphasized, “calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction.”
Opinion analysis: Court orders do-over on citizenship question in census case (Updated) - SCOTUSblog
