,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ There is a common thread in how CJ Roberts has considered the actions of the Trump Administration. #SCOTUS
2/ In Trump v. Hawaii, Roberts recognized that the travel ban was likely motivated (at least in part) by an improper animus. However, because "§1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause," he was not willing to second-guess the stated justifications for the ban.
3/ In the Gerrymandering case, he recognized that the maps were drawn for purely political reasons. However, because he did not think the judiciary could properly scrutinize partisan gerrymandering, he found that courts must defer to the political process.
4/ In the Census case, he recognized that the VRA justification was an obvious pretext, and was willing to entertain whether an "unstated" motivation could justify the policy. But, the Secretary offered one and only one justification. Therefore, he could not defer.
5/ If the Secretary can muster up an alternate justification--for example, the states are interested in using citizen data to draw their maps--then the census question will survive.
6/ Next term, the administration will have to defend its DACA decision. Once again, the gov only offered a single reason to rescind DACA: they determined that it is contrary to law.
7/ Will this single justification be adequate to assuage the Chief on DACA? I offered an early explanation of how best to read the AG's decision to suspend the policy. lawfareblog.com/understanding-… Given the census case, I think the government will meet its burden.
