Good morning from New York.
There is a hearing this morning in the lawsuit opposing the Trump administration's bid to exclude undocumented immigrants from census apportionment.
Covering it live for @CourthouseNews.
Background from last month: courthousenews.com/challenge-of-t…
There is a hearing this morning in the lawsuit opposing the Trump administration's bid to exclude undocumented immigrants from census apportionment.
Covering it live for @CourthouseNews.
Background from last month: courthousenews.com/challenge-of-t…
We are about to begin.
Judge Furman convenes the hearing with U.S. Circuit Judges Peter Hall and Richard Wesley round out the three-member panel.
For @NewYorkStateAG: Judith Vale
For @ACLU: Dale Ho
Judge Furman convenes the hearing with U.S. Circuit Judges Peter Hall and Richard Wesley round out the three-member panel.
For @NewYorkStateAG: Judith Vale
For @ACLU: Dale Ho
Vale begins oral arguments by slamming what she calls "blatantly unconstitutional exclusion" of undocumented immigrants from apportionment.
If the Trump admin's plans go through, California will likely lose at least one seat. Texas and New Jersey are also likely to lose seats.
If the Trump admin's plans go through, California will likely lose at least one seat. Texas and New Jersey are also likely to lose seats.
Vale:
"States like New York and California have robust public participation processes that are required."
"This is all real work that takes time and resources and is important for the legitimacy of the process."
"States like New York and California have robust public participation processes that are required."
"This is all real work that takes time and resources and is important for the legitimacy of the process."
Vale right now is arguing whether the case can be adjudicated.
She notes the government has argued: "They may not be able to do what the president has directed," in the memo.
That the govt "may do a bad job" at carrying out Trump's memo is no defense, Vale says.
She notes the government has argued: "They may not be able to do what the president has directed," in the memo.
That the govt "may do a bad job" at carrying out Trump's memo is no defense, Vale says.
Dale Ho is up:
"It is deterring census responses now," by undermining the message that "everyone counts," Ho says.
These facts establish standing under the SCOTUS citizenship question ruling, he adds.
"It is deterring census responses now," by undermining the message that "everyone counts," Ho says.
These facts establish standing under the SCOTUS citizenship question ruling, he adds.
Ho says the memo communicates that participating in the census is a "futile act" for undocumented immigrants, sowing distrust in that community.
Furman asks Ho to respond to the government's argument that this confusion among undocumented immigrants stems from media misreporting about the Trump admin's policy.
Even if true, Ho says, it doesn't matter:
"Even in a dry season it is fair to trace the fire to the arsonist."
Even if true, Ho says, it doesn't matter:
"Even in a dry season it is fair to trace the fire to the arsonist."
Back to Vale:
She notes that the Trump admin change also imperils federal funding for a variety of programs.
She notes that the Trump admin change also imperils federal funding for a variety of programs.
Vale says that the constitutional question is not close.
The Trump admin's policy is a departure from 200 years of precedent and practice, she notes.
It has "no authority, no discretion to subtract millions of undocumented immigrants" from apportionment, she adds.
The Trump admin's policy is a departure from 200 years of precedent and practice, she notes.
It has "no authority, no discretion to subtract millions of undocumented immigrants" from apportionment, she adds.
Sopan Joshi is up for the DOJ:
He argues that there's no right to sue because the harms by the new Trump policy are hypothetical. He claims it's speculation that people are chilled.
The panel doesn't seem to be buying it.
He argues that there's no right to sue because the harms by the new Trump policy are hypothetical. He claims it's speculation that people are chilled.
The panel doesn't seem to be buying it.
Judge Hall asks him: How many people would have to be "unchilled" by a ruling blocking Trump's memorandum for the plaintiffs to have the right to sue?
Is one enough?
DOJ's Joshi punts: "It would have to be non-speculative."
Is one enough?
DOJ's Joshi punts: "It would have to be non-speculative."
Judge Furman notes that Joshi's argument is the same one the Trump administration made in the citizenship question case.
He notes ‘both I and the Supreme Court" rejected that.
(Furman was the trial judge on both cases.)
He notes ‘both I and the Supreme Court" rejected that.
(Furman was the trial judge on both cases.)
Vale is back up for the NYAG:
"The decision of the president right now is to exclude all undocumented immigrants" from apportionment, adding there is "no way that is constitutional or lawful."
"The decision of the president right now is to exclude all undocumented immigrants" from apportionment, adding there is "no way that is constitutional or lawful."
Furman closes proceedings, reserving decision for an unspecified time.
