[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court temporarily blocked Monday a court order for Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, to file a lawsuit challenging the addition of a citizenship-related issue to the 2020 census.
As the Supreme Court wants to hear the applications for stays, his brief order gave no reason. The court said its order suspending the testimony would be upheld until it resolves a request from the Trump administration. A trial in this case is scheduled to begin next month.
In urging the judges to prevent the evidence, the Trump administration stated that Mr. Ross's subjective motives for adding the question were legally irrelevant. The administration stated that its reasons were sufficient to allow the courts to review the legality of the change.
"These reasons include the Department of Justice's view that the citizenship data from the decennial census would be useful in fulfilling its enforcement obligations with respect to the right to property. vote ", wrote Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, in an urgent request.
Asking questions about citizenship would "fatally affect" the accuracy of the census, they said, as legal and unauthorized immigrants could refuse to fill in the form. This could reduce democratic representation when new state and congressional districts are designated in 2021, and affect the distribution of federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars.
The pressure groups said that Ross's testimony was necessary in light of his "changing and inaccurate explanations". He first stated that he had acted in response to a request from the Justice Department in December 2017 and that he had not consulted the White House.
Later, Ross acknowledged that he had explored the idea well before receiving a letter from the Department of Justice and had discussed it with Stephen K. Bannon, then chief strategist. President Trump, in the spring of 2017.
These discrepancies "have blatantly undermined the credibility of Secretary of State Ross," wrote Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Manhattan Federal District Court, ordering the evidence to go from there. ;before.
Mr. Francisco told the Supreme Court that Judge Furman drew "inferential inferences" from Ross's statements, while acknowledging that at least one of them was "certainly imprecise".
The Court of Appeal stated that Furman JA had "stated that Secretary Ross likely had a unique and essential knowledge of the plaintiffs' claims". Indeed, the court stated that three of its associates stated that only Mr. Ross could answer certain questions.
On Monday, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, accompanied by Judge Clarence Thomas, said the Supreme Court should have gone further by stopping any pre-trial gathering of facts in the census case. Judge Gorsuch added that there was no indication of bad faith in Mr. Ross's conduct.
"There is nothing wrong with the arrival of a new cabinet secretary inclined to adopt a different political orientation, to seek the help of other agencies to support his opinions, to disagree with the staff or reducing red tape, wrote Judge Gorsuch. "Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and the process. But so far, at least, this has never been thought enough to justify a complaint of bad faith and launch an investigation into the motives of a cabinet secretary. "
Source link
