Lexplug logoLexplug

Department of Commerce v. New York

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
588 U. S. ____ (2019) (2019)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency's discretionary action is arbitrary and capricious and may be set aside if the agency's sole stated rationale is pretextual and incongruent with the evidence in the administrative record about the actual decision-making process.


Facts:

  • Historically, the U.S. census asked about citizenship, but from 1960 to 2000, the question was moved to a long-form questionnaire sent to only a sample of households.
  • In 2010, the citizenship question was removed from the decennial census entirely and placed on the American Community Survey (ACS), which is sent to a small percentage of households annually.
  • Shortly after his confirmation in early 2017, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross began actively exploring the reinstatement of a citizenship question to the main 2020 census form.
  • Secretary Ross and his staff attempted to solicit a request for citizenship data from other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, but were unsuccessful.
  • Secretary Ross personally contacted the Attorney General to ask if the Department of Justice (DOJ) would request the data for Voting Rights Act (VRA) enforcement purposes.
  • In December 2017, the DOJ formally sent a letter to the Commerce Department requesting the reinstatement of the citizenship question, stating it was needed for more accurate data to enforce the VRA.
  • The Census Bureau's own experts advised against adding the question, presenting evidence that it would depress response rates, particularly in immigrant communities, harm the overall accuracy of the population count, and produce lower-quality citizenship data than using existing administrative records.
  • In March 2018, Secretary Ross issued a memo announcing his decision to add the question, citing the DOJ's VRA enforcement request as the sole reason and concluding that the need for the data outweighed the risks of a lower response rate.

Procedural Posture:

  • Two groups of plaintiffs, including 18 states, various cities, and non-governmental organizations, filed suits against the Department of Commerce in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
  • The District Court consolidated the cases and, after finding a strong preliminary showing of bad faith, authorized discovery beyond the administrative record.
  • Following a bench trial, the District Court found for the plaintiffs, holding that the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and capricious, based on a pretextual rationale, and in violation of the Census Act.
  • The District Court vacated the Secretary's decision and enjoined the government from adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census.
  • The government appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
  • Simultaneously, the government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment with the U.S. Supreme Court, which the Court granted due to the urgent need to finalize the census questionnaire.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Secretary of Commerce's decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, based on the stated rationale of enforcing the Voting Rights Act, violate the Administrative Procedure Act as an arbitrary and capricious agency action?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Roberts

Yes. The Secretary of Commerce's decision violates the Administrative Procedure Act because the stated rationale was pretextual and incongruent with the actual decision-making process revealed in the record. Although the Secretary has broad authority over the census and the decision to add the question is not inherently unconstitutional or illegal, agency action requires a genuine, reasoned explanation. The administrative record, supplemented by justified extra-record discovery, revealed a significant 'disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.' The evidence showed the Secretary was determined to add the question from the beginning of his tenure, shopped around for a justification, and only adopted the VRA rationale late in the process after directly soliciting it from the DOJ. Because the sole stated reason appears to have been contrived and was not the genuine basis for the decision, the action was arbitrary and capricious, warranting a remand to the agency.


Dissenting-in-part - Justice Thomas

No. The Secretary's decision does not violate the APA because the rationale provided was adequate, and the Court's unprecedented inquiry into pretext improperly second-guesses the sincerity of an agency's motives. The Court correctly found the Secretary's action was substantively reasonable and complied with the Constitution and Census Act, which should have ended the inquiry. By invalidating the action based on a finding of pretext, the Court departs from the deferential standard of review and erodes the 'presumption of regularity' owed to the Executive Branch. This holding opens a 'Pandora's box' for future litigation, allowing political opponents to derail legitimate agency action with accusations of bad faith and intrusive discovery into the deliberative process.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Breyer

Yes. The decision violates the APA not only because the rationale was pretextual, but also because the decision was substantively arbitrary and capricious. The Secretary failed to adequately consider the severe risks of an inaccurate census, as all evidence indicated adding the question would reduce response rates and disproportionately harm minority communities. Furthermore, the Secretary's conclusion that the question would produce more accurate citizenship data ran directly 'counter to the evidence' from his own experts, who stated that using administrative records alone would be more accurate. Making a decision that creates a severe risk of harm in pursuit of a goal it does not actually achieve is a clear violation of the APA's prohibition on arbitrary and capricious decision-making.


Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Alito

No. The Judiciary has no authority to review this decision under the APA because the matter is 'committed to agency discretion by law.' The Census Act grants the Secretary of Commerce broad and unfettered discretion to determine the 'form and content' of the decennial census, providing no meaningful standard for a court to apply. Historically, the content of the census has been a matter for the Executive and Legislative branches, not the Judiciary. By subjecting the Secretary's decision to APA review, the Court improperly intrudes into a policy judgment that the law entrusts to another branch of government.



Analysis:

This case significantly reinforces the 'reasoned explanation' requirement in administrative law, establishing that judicial review extends to the sincerity of an agency's stated rationale. The Court clarified that while political considerations are part of agency policymaking, an agency cannot invent a contrived, pretextual reason to justify a predetermined outcome. This ruling creates a path, albeit a narrow one, for litigants to challenge agency actions by demonstrating a fundamental disconnect between the official justification and the actual decision-making process, potentially authorizing discovery beyond the administrative record in rare cases of suspected bad faith. It sets a precedent that an agency's stated reason must be genuine, not merely plausible, to survive arbitrary and capricious review.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Department of Commerce v. New York (2019)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"