The trial begins with the citizenship question of the 2020 census

A federal lawsuit began Monday in New York to challenge the federal government's decision to ask a citizenship question at the 2020 census.

The first witness – Professor D. Sunshine Hillygus of Duke University – stated that it was clear that adding the question would depress the participation of non-citizens.

Hillygus, who served for six years on the scientific advisory board for the census, said she had concluded the US government's plans to take action to avoid damaging the global tally by adding that the issue would probably not be adequate.

She stated that the decision "violates the spirit" of the guidelines established to protect the census and "compromises not only the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the census … but also its integrity".

The lawsuit originated in lawsuits filed by a dozen states and major cities, among others. They say that the issue of citizenship will discourage immigrant participation and dilute political representation and funds for states that tend to vote Democrats.

New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood attended the trial on Monday.

US District Judge Jesse Furman, hearing the case without a jury, strongly criticized the federal government's efforts to delay or stop the trial. He described them as remarkable because government officials insist that a speedy resolution of prosecutions is necessary so that census preparations can begin.

When he appeared in court on Monday, he admitted that the US Supreme Court said Friday that the trial could continue despite the objections of the Justice Department.

"He fell on the wire but we are there," Furman said.

The Department of Justice insists that Furman should decide the case solely on the basis of the administrative record rather than on the evidence gathered by the complainants, which includes the testimony of officials from the Department of Commerce and others.

Furman has stated that he will allow the presentation of evidence during the trial before he decides whether it is appropriate to review them when publishing his opinion.

In a recent opinion, Justices Neil Gorsuch of the Supreme Court and Clarence Thomas essentially invited the Department of Justice's lawyers to seek a stay of the trial.

When the High Court ruled that the Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, did not have to submit to an immediate deposition, Gorsuch drafted a partial dissent. In this paper, Gorsuch – joined by Thomas – suggested to Furman to delay the trial and wait for the Supreme Court's directions.

Furman reacted in a written decision giving the go-ahead to the trial: "It's the government's conduct in this case, and not the court's review, which is" very unusual, it's the least we can say "" Gorsuch.

Gorsuch wrote that the trial was going to probe the Secretary of Commerce's "mental processes".

"All of this is very unusual, it's the least we can say," Gorsuch said.

Three days after Furman's decision, the Ministry of Justice returned to the Supreme Court, seeking to block the trial.