01192022Wed
Last updateThu, 25 Feb 2021 12pm
HatCountry.com Women's Mens Kids Western Wear and Hats!

Supreme Court: No census citizenship question for now, need clarified agency explanation

“In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KVqaIaeRpA

(Legal Insurrection | William A. Jacobson) - In a complicated ruling, the Supreme Court substantially upheld the inclusion of a census question regarding citizenship, but procedurally held that more inquiry was needed into C0mmerce Dept. reasoning in seeking to add the question.

So the bottom line is that there might be a citizenship question, but it’s unclear if there is time to get it resolved under deadlines for printing census forms.

The Syllabus (which is not part of the official Opinion) described the complicated breakdown by Justice:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Parts I and II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts III, IV–B, and IV–C, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; with respect to Part IV–A, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined; and with respect to Part V, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Some key portions of the majority opinion: ... continued.

We could use your help!

Your contribution is appreciated, if only a couple of bucks, the cost of countering the liberal media is arduous and costly.

SiteLock