SEATTLE – A federal judge rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to dismiss several elements of the multi-party lawsuit challenging the Federal Government’s intention to add a citizenship question to the U.S. 2020 Census. The City of Seattle joined with Washington State and a coalition of other states in challenging the proposed census change. City Attorney Pete Holmes, Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda and Councilmember M. Lorena González provided the following reactions:
Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes said, “The Trump Administration’s attempt to change the US Census is seeped in racial animus, and the President’s own remarks helps make the case. I long for the days when the federal government was actually interested in conducting a true and accurate count of people who live in this country. For cities like Seattle, with large numbers of residents who were born outside the United States, accurate information is vital. I’m very pleased this lawsuit is pushing ahead.”
“I’m thrilled this case will move forward, and further expose the Trump administration’s attempt to reduce representation in diverse areas where immigrants make up large portions of the population,” said Councilmember Teresa Mosqueda (Position 8, Citywide). “Accurate Census information is vital to obtain our fair share of federal dollars that go toward early learning programs, housing vouchers, Medicaid, grants for students and other assistance programs. This city will continue to fight, so all our Seattle neighbors, regardless of their citizenship status, get the services they deserve to live healthy lives.”
“The Trump Administration’s push to ask about citizenship on the 2020 Census was about politics and scare tactics to further marginalize immigrant communities into the shadows,” said Councilmember M. Lorena González (Position 9, Citywide). “Career Census Bureau officials, demographers, academics, and even pro-Trump conservative think tanks value and support the need for an accurate demographic count held to scientific standards. This Administration continues to ignore evidence-based practices to politicize a critical person count that forms the bedrock of our democracy.”
In yesterday’s seventy-page ruling, Judge Furman found it plausible that a citizenship question would drive down response rates and impair the accuracy of the 2020 Census. Further, the Court found it plausible that an undercount resulting from the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census would negatively impact jurisdictions’ federal funding and representational interests.
The Court also found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged discriminatory intent or animus, noting contemporaneous statements from President Trump, with his reference to “shithole countries” and his comment that immigrants are “animals.”
The Trump Administration, through the US Department of Commerce, attempted to dismiss the claims through which the lawsuit could proceed. The judge dismissed the claim based on the Enumeration Clause, but allowed the claims involving the Equal Protection Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Political Question Doctrine to move forward. The judge also upheld the plaintiffs’ standing to proceed with the lawsuit.
Trial is set for late October, 2018.