[ad_1]
The Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on one of its most controversial cases since the lawsuit around the travel ban: the challenge of the Trump administration's attempt to add a question of citizenship at the 2020 census.
Even if the judges deliberate on this case, new shocking reports provide essential support to opponents of the position of the administration. This strongly suggests that the justification of the Trump administration's lawyers, in their submission to the Supreme Court, the addition of a census question on citizenship was an absolute lie, or at least a deliberate pretext. A recently deceased Republican strategist, whose 2015 study showed that adding a question about citizenship to the census would overburden the pro-Republican gerrymandering, provided the reasons and writes a key language that inspired a letter from the Department of Justice stating that the issue of citizenship was necessary to enforce the vote Rights Act.
We have seen this drama before. Last year, the Supreme Court faced similar problems of false and blatant reporting by the Trump administration in the travel ban case. The court neglected the summary details of this case and ruled in favor of the administration.
In the most important case of this term, the court should not be taken into account.
During the travel ban case, I remember sitting in the astonished courtroom when the solicitor general told the judges that President Trump had "clearly stated" that he "did not have not intend to impose the ban on Muslims. candidate, Mr. Trump had promised on several occasions.
In such a case, judges seek evidence of animosity against a particular group. Establishing the link between Mr. Trump's omnipresent anti-Muslim rhetoric and his promulgation was a fundamental part of the challengers' thesis.
At the end of the day, conservative majority judges voted in favor of maintaining the ban, saying it was a valid exercise of the president's authority.
In the census case, which will soon be decided by the Supreme Court, the administration was challenged on the grounds that the addition of a question of citizenship violated the administrative procedures in force and, by definition, violated the constitutional guarantee of equality of protection by discriminating against minority and immigrant groups, including certain nationalities.
In three federal trials, judges ruled against the action of the administration.
Although I was caught off the hook a year ago when the travel ban was pleaded during the day of the census debates, I was surprised to hear the Solicitor General insist that that the addition of the question was intended to facilitate the application of the Voting Rights Act. The facts revealed at the trial clearly showed that it was only an excuse for a pre-existing commitment to add a citizenship issue.
The information recently revealed by the Republican strategist dramatically confirms what the record of the trial has already shown: the Trump administration's real reason for the question of citizenship strengthens Republican political power. Adding the question, according to opponents of the movement, would deter many immigrants from participating in the census and thus being counted, which would in turn help the Republicans.
A letter filed Thursday at the Supreme Court rightly adds that the issue was added at the beginning as an effort "to create a structural electoral advantage" for "Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites". And a US District Court judge in Manhattan, who ruled against the addition of the issue, has a hearing for next week to assess, among other implications, whether these documents mean that key witnesses lied during the trial. The hearing can produce clear evidence directly related to the Supreme Court's handling of the case.
On Thursday, the Justice Department said the new information was simply "a last-ditch effort to derail the Supreme Court's review of this case" and added that the 2015 study does not provide any information. had "played no role" in the department's request to reinstate a citizenship issue. .
The Justice Ministry also said it would explain it in court. Perhaps there is an explanation of why it is not the smoking gun it seems to be. But we already have a shooting gallery with smoking rifles in the trial record showing that the Trump administration's rationale was just a pretext. The new evidence has at least made much more smoke.
The legitimacy of our judicial system depends on the fact that judges rule on facts – on the actual facts, not on a misrepresentation of them offered by one of the parties to a case.
The Supreme Court is now faced with a choice: how will a majority of judges handle another attempt by the Trump administration to mislead the court? There is a sad story, which goes back at least to the infamous Korematsu decision during the Second World War – a shameful decision confirming the forced displacement and forced internment of Japanese-Americans – in which the court made unfortunate decisions founded later proved false.
But there is still time for the court to settle the census case by raising the excuse of the Trump administration's real motivation to add a question about citizenship. For its own legitimacy, the court must do it and avoid getting caught by Trump's lawyers.
Joshua A. Geltzer (@jgeltzer) is Executive Director and Visiting Law Professor at the Institute for Defense and Constitutional Protection at Georgetown Law Center.
The Times is committed to publishing a variety of letters For the publisher. We would like to know what you think about this article or one of our articles. That's some advice. And here is our email: [email protected].
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
[ad_2]
Source link