Thread by @jentaub

👀 Wow. Just. Wow. This is a transcript from today’s census case hearing. Parties attended by phone it seems.

drive.google.com/file/d/1M3Y6vj…

Attorney for government: "Your Honor, this is Mr. Gardner. The one thing I would request is, given that tomorrow is the Fourth of July and the difficulty in assembling people from all over the place, is it possible that we could do this on Monday?

Judge: "No."

1/

Gardner: "And again -- okay."

Judge: "No. Because timing is an issue. Timing is an issue, and we've lost a week at this point. And this
isn't anything against anybody on this call. I've been told different things, and it's becoming increasingly frustrating."

2/

If "attorney for Facebook told me one thing & then I read a press release from Mark Zuckerberg telling me something else, I would be demanding that Mark Zuckerberg appear in court with you the next time because I would be saying I don't think you speak for your client anymore"
3/

Duraiswamy (Attorney for plaintiff): "consistent with Mr. Gardner's prior communications with us the permanent injunction from this Court remains in effect the injunction permanently preventing the Government from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census."

4/

Judge: "And I meant to respond to that. I made a
note and then overlooked it. I don't think there is currently a need to litigate the motion for preliminary injunction because there is at least one, if not more, injunction in place. So I do agree with that."

5/5

This was also very good

"Hulettt (attorney for plaintiff): "The President's tweet has some of the same effects that the addition of the question would in the first place and some of the same effects on the 18-month battle that was just waged over the citizenship question."

6/6

Okay. I'll add some key information from the early part of the transcript

Judge: "So I guess the reason I wanted to have this call. . this morning I saw a tweet that got my attention. I don't know how many federal judges have Twitter accounts, but I happen to be one of them"

7/

Judge: "and I follow the President, and so I saw a tweet that directly contradicted the position that Mr. Gardner had shared with me yesterday."

8/

"Govt Attorney Gardner: "Your Honor this is Mr. Gardner. I want to back up just a step and say that I've been with the United States Department of Justice for 16 years through multiple Administrations, and I've always endeavored to be as candid as possible with the Court"

9/

Gardner: "The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the President's position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the President has tweeted. "

10/

"But, obviously, as you can imagine, I am doing my absolute best to figure out what's going on."

11/

"I can tell you that I have confirmed that the Census Bureau is continuing with the process of printing the questionnaire without a citizenship question, and that process has not stopped."

12/

Duraiswamy (attorney for plaintiff): "Your Honor, I think it underscores, obviously, the need for a stipulated order . . . that makes clear not only that the Government is printing the questionnaire for the 2020 census without a citizenship question . . "

13/

"but that there will be no further effort to inquire about citizenship status as part of the 2020 census in any manner."

14/

"I think it also suggests that we may need a further
provision of that order that makes clear that the defendants will not communicate to the public anything to the contrary suggesting that the 2020 census is inquiring about citizenship status."

15/

"And, further, that they will counter, publicly counter any such misinformation that comes from government officials. So we are working on a stipulated order to that effect. . ."

16/

Judge: "Obviously, if they're willing to stipulate to that
in an order they agree to. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they're not. "

17/

Judge: "What would be the basis for me to order them not to -- and I assume you're including the President of the United States in what you're suggesting -- not to make any statements contrary to the order that they're not going to include the question? . . ."

18/

Judge: "By Friday at 2 p.m. I want one of two things. I either want a stipulation, as we've been discussing, indicating that the citizenship question will not appear on the census, or . . "

19/

"I want a proposed scheduling order for how we're going forward on the equal protection claim that's been remanded to this Court.I want one of those two things by Friday at two o'clock. . ."

20/20