Judge Jesse Furman went a fur piece — over a 277-page decision (embedded below) — in ruling yesterday that the Trump administration cannot lawfully add its proposed citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Judge Furman, by the way, is an Obama appointee to the busy bench of the Southern District of New York who presided over an eight-day trial of the case. I am tuning in to the case late and trying to catch up.
Judge Furman goes into great detail on the administration’s failure to dot the i’s and cross the t’s in deciding to add the citizenship question to the Census. Judge Furman also finds that a certain lack of candor — he is considerably more blunt — permeated the administration’s description of the decision-making process leading to inclusion of the citizenship question.
Judge Furman’s opinion in the case comes complete with a useful table of contents and takes the form of findings of fact and conclusions of law. I trust that the decision is headed for further review in a higher court or two, but the decision presents a formidable challenge. Michael Wines’s New York Times story on the decision luxuriates in its findings.
At pages 270-275, Judge Furman considers the issuance of an injunction. What would one of these cases be without an injunction? Judge Furman issues an injunction. Given the effective timetable for preparation of the Census by this June, the upshot of the injunction is the preclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census unless the decision is promptly stayed or reversed on appeal.
2019-01-15-574-Findings Of … by on Scribd