Supreme Court Agrees to Review Census Citizenship Question…

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue of the 2020 census citizenship question, and legal challenges per the Commerce Dept -vs- New York.

(pdf link)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court said Friday that it will take up the battle over a citizenship question for the coming census, agreeing to hear and decide the case before the court’s term ends in late June. (more)

This entry was posted in Illegal Aliens, media bias, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

133 Responses to Supreme Court Agrees to Review Census Citizenship Question…

  1. OH BOY!! Perfect timing! Better make sure RBG is alive before that arrives on the bench.

    Liked by 11 people

  2. JB in Jefferson says:

    We should prevail at the Supreme Court, unless Roberts flips again.

    Liked by 7 people

  3. Tiffthis says:

    That’s why RBG showed up to work today.

    Liked by 3 people

    • FrankieZee says:

      I will believe that when I see some pictures. That was reported by HUFF PO. Have no fear, John Roberts will screw us again.

      Liked by 8 people

      • tuskyou says:

        Right on—-pics or it didn’t happen!

        Liked by 3 people

      • MNcarrypermitholder says:

        Lots of outlets are reporting it because it apparently came from the court’s official flack.

        Liked by 2 people

        • vikingmom says:

          Lots of “reports” but zero pictures or eyewitnesses…

          The next round of oral arguments starts on Tuesday…if she is NOT present for those, especially in light of two media reports in the past week that she is out and about, then the Plaintiffs need to demand proof that she is, in fact, alive and mentally capable of making rulings before they present their cases.

          We blew it with John McCain – every time someone would question the state of his health, there would be an interview, a Tweet, a family event that would show up in the news. I do not believe there were ANY pictures of him taken in the last six months of his life and a lot of things in Arizona politics might have been handled very differently if he actually did pass away sooner than announced. We cannot make the same mistake with RBG!!

          I strongly doubt that Gorsuch or Kavanaugh would feel comfortable being the one to call out Roberts if he is covering for her, but I would hope that Thomas or Alito would step up and say something!

          Liked by 4 people

    • DeAnna Vaughn says:

      I don’t believe for a second she was there. Current pictures would have been provided if she was.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Phil aka Felipe says:

    Why would it be unconstitutional to determine the number of citizens and non-citizens that are in the country?

    Liked by 11 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      Ask Nanc.


    • Redhotsnowman says:

      It wouldn’t. That’s why if it somehow is ruled unconstitutional we have some serious issues. It should be a unanimous decision.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Mark McQueen says:

      Since non-citizens are counted anyway, it’s not. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • Alison Wilson says:

      AND I don’t get why everyone immediately jumps to illegal aliens and the questions. There are a ton of people here on work visas, student visas and green cards. Shouldn’t we know how many there are of those residents among us?

      Liked by 4 people

    • Luke Adachi says:

      Yeah, it could go either way by statute. the constitution doesn’t actually speak to that. Although, i think i’m remembering that the federalist papers seems to allude to it being with respect to residents not citizens…. googling… but he also uses the term subjects.

      from Heritage dot org:

      In The Federalist No. 36, Alexander Hamilton, in attempting to reassure his audience that the population figures upon which taxation would be based would not be subject to political manipulation, stated that “an actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectively shuts the door to partiality or oppression.” Similarly, Thomas Jefferson, in a 1791 letter discussing the first census, indicated that the census “is founded on actual returns” as opposed to being “conjectured.” George Washington, in a letter to Gouverneur Morris in the same year, contrasted an estimate with an enumeration, commenting that an “estimate” he had given “of the number of inhabitants which would probably be found in the United States on enumeration, was too large.” Finally, the Census Act of 1790, establishing the first census, required an actual counting; census takers were required to swear an oath to “truly cause to be made, a just and perfect enumeration and description of all persons resident within [their] districts.”

      the problem is that it would be an actual count of illegal aliens, and would hamper the obfuscation, and shadowy nature, of how many illegals are here ; for political purposes. Then i would hope to extend the argument that they shouldn’t count towards representation in the house, and then you really have something if you can make that case, to make electoral life much less easy for democrat party candidates.

      Liked by 7 people

      • emet says:

        In those early days, US Marshalls took tge census. I think they got paid by each entry


      • Alison Wilson says:

        And don’t forget that population determines how much money dc sends back to each state. So we are talking about representation as well as money.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Luke, the Constitution most certainly does address the matter and in no uncertain terms! Since you are so (and rightly so) high on the Federalist Papers, check out #33 and 78. They give a clue. Maine Coon gets it.

        And the is not the most authoritative source to refer to. The Constitution is.

        In order for that question to be lawful and constitutional, it will require an AMENDMENT, not a law, not a case, not a request by a department head, or anything else.
        Only an amendment!!

        Interesting that not one single so-called “constitutional” member of congress introduced an amendment to do just this; nor has any so-called constitutional TV (or radio) “expert” that I have heard.


        • KnowSERENoFear says:

          Absolutely. Like!

          And other than it being Constitutional to have a census every 10 years…why do we even have one anymore? 16A negated State tax obligation and the 1929 cap on Representatives at 435 together defeat the purpose of a census.

          BTW – what’s your take on the cap of Representatives? Isn’t it supposed to be 1:30K? Should we really have ~6000 Representatives? Wouldn’t a cap require Article 5 action?


        • Luke Adachi says:

          I was just saying that the constitution does not make determinations as to the allowance of some questions or others to be asked during the course of a census.

          I have to admit i peeked at 33 and 78 and i’m not sure what i should be identifying as the matter which is certainly addressed.

          I’ll take no exception to the superiority of the constitution as a source for the constitution.


      • snellvillebob says:

        I look forward to seeing Kamala, Pelosi, and Booker telling the Illegal aliens that it ok to lie on the census.


      • CM-TX says:

        Said to be 100 million illegals in the US (with children). Not sure if that # included all the “anchor babies” or not.

        But whatever the #, it’s consistently rising daily… costing us $100’s of billions annually.

        Source: “America: No Documents Needed”


    • justlizzyp says:

      It isn’t but of course the Left is claiming that illegals will be afraid to respond to the census and therefore not be counted. Their fears are, of course, that the data will be handed over to the brown shirts at ICE and they will be deported. Can’t have illegal aliens living in fear now, can we? THAT’S NOT WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY!!!! /end sarcasm

      Liked by 2 people

    • lurker2 says:

      What I understand from my reading is that the plaintiffs cried that Wilbur Ross is biased against Hispanics and the judge agreed with them even though he couldn’t provide any real evidence to support the claim. I don’t think this kind of emotional baseless argument is going to survive the Supreme Court.

      Liked by 1 person

    • dawg says:

      Its not. It seems to have already been decided that asking questions beyond a simple count are not unconstitutional, and do not violate the 4th amendment.

      Which is why its curious that they would even take up this case. It would seem that if there is ANY question beyond “are you alive”, it would be “are you a citizen of this country”. Right?

      Im no lawyer, maybe someone else can comment.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. L4grasshopper says:

    Encouraging. Believe it takes at least 4 to do this. None of the Leftists would want to since the lower court ruling would prevail if Court did not take it.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Tony D. says:

    Sorry if someone asked this already. Why is this even a question of if it can or cannot be on the census. I am getting very tired of getting everyone to approve of something before anything can move forward. Feels to much like “governing by permission only” to me. We elected the guy and that means he should have certain elected authority. What will we have to ask permission for next. I know – The toilet paper roll must go into the holder so that you can pull it in a counter-clockwise fashion!

    Liked by 4 people

    • Kimmy K says:

      Lawfare, and the left are pretty good at tying things up with it unfortunately.

      We need to start on them.
      Aborting BORN BABIES!?!?
      Just EVIL.

      Liked by 2 people

    • L4grasshopper says:

      The Left goes after someone doing legal things on the basis of their motivation for doing legal things.

      The President had the power to restrict immigration. The Left took him to Court and argued NOT that he didn’t have the power, but that he used it for a reason THEY didn’t like. They prevailed until it got to SCOTUS. In the meantime, it wasted a year and a half — always their goal.

      In this case, it is obviously OK to ask the question, as it has been asked on many prior Censuses, and in fact if being asked on the next one on the “long form”. The Leftists are mad because they claim having it on all forms will demotivate illegals from filling out a Census. That is — they claim that the motivation should be illegal.

      Hopefully SCOTUS will slam this one back in their faces as well. But Roberts is a real wild card….the guy seems to be “outcome based” like the 4 Leftists on the Court.instead of “legal based”.

      But by taking it at all it means at least 4 of the Justices wanted to decide this. As the Leftists would not want to do so because the lower ruling is in their favor, I think we can assume that at least 4 of the 5 non Leftists were involved in taking the case.

      Liked by 1 person

    • lurker2 says:

      The Democrats announced after Trump won that they were going to do all they could to prevent him from implementing his policies, and that included tying everything up in the courts. They ultimately lose most of the cases, I think.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. TwoLaine says:



    Liked by 2 people

  8. This would imply, I believe, that SCOTUS intends to allow the question to be on the census.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Sentient says:

    Will Congress legislate that congressional seats (and presidential electors) be apportioned based upon numbers of citizens – as opposed to mere denizens of the states? Democrats would oppose that – as it would reduce the number of seats in California and other states with high levels of illegals. Some Republicans might oppose it, too – either because they’re squishes or because they might fear for their seat if their state loses one or more congressional seats.

    Liked by 3 people

    • lurker2 says:

      That’s a great question. The Constitution refers to “persons” for determining representation, so it might not be citizens. But why would a non-citizen have representation in the US government?

      Liked by 1 person

      • lurker2 says:

        Here’s the answer:

        Who is included in the apportionment population counts?

        The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states.

        This explains why the plaintiffs are crying that because (in their minds) Ross is biased against Hispanics and therefore Hispanics will be afraid to be counted lest they be deported then districts will have too few Hispanics being counted.

        But we shouldn’t be counting people who are in the country illegally, and it seems worse to me to give more representation to districts that have higher numbers of illegals.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. freepetta says:

    So much of a waste of money and time for things which should be common sense.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Do Stop Thinking About Tomorrow says:

    This will probably answer is Robert the swing vote.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Steven says:

    Isn’t the hearing in April and a decision soon after making it too late to modified census forms?


    • ristvan says:

      No. That is why SCOTUS Rule 11 cert before judgement was granted today.
      Commerce stated that the forms needed to be finalized by late June. This way SCOTUS has a decision before the physical deadline. Plus, one district court had ruled proper, one improper, so the requisite underlying legal ‘confusion’ for cert was present.

      Liked by 6 people

  13. lurker2 says:

    It just dawned on me this is one reason why states want illegals to flood in. Because they can then have greater (relative) representation in the House.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. fred5678 says:

    LOVED some Dem’s comment that Latinos will be scared of answering if this passes. They should be — but only if they are illegal aliens.

    If the good guys and gals win, maybe Calif only gets 35 electoral votes next go around ???


    • Lindenlee says:

      Why in the hell would a state get presidential electors based on non-citizens?!? That makes NO SENSE!

      Liked by 1 person

    • lurker2 says:

      Oh my God I hadn’t even thought of electoral votes, because it’s based in part on the number of Representatives in the House! This is super serious!

      We’ve been asleep at the wheel, everyone. We’re in a new age of enlightenment thanks to President Trump and the sunlight he has brought.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Lindenlee says:

        Electoral votes are supposed to represent the wishes of CITIZENS ONLY. This must be clarified by SCOTUS, although I really have doubts about Roberts.

        So this is why the Dims are pushing for so many illegals to be brought in! I didn’t know this, either.

        Liked by 1 person

  15. Bryan Alexander says:

    If the census is used to apportion representation in Congress, and that representation is determined by eligible voters, i.e. citizens, why would you include non-citizens in the census? This is one of those logical questions that on its face appears to be senseless argument. Since I was in grade school (and I am 55), I have never thought the census would include non-citizens in the count.

    I wonder if the census takers go to Disney World and count all of the foreigners in the park and use them in the Florida number?

    This is a no-brainer. But, knowing how John Roberts and the liberal wing of the court handle things, it would not surprise me if he ruled that illegals be counted in the census. Defies every logical argument, but liberalism isn’t logical.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Fools Gold says:

    Heart felt Department of Commerce from NYC. Is that similar to US CoC?


  17. Bendix says:

    I can’t think of a more legitimate question on the census than whether or not you are a citizen.
    I also know that people living here as permanent residents but not citizens do not mind telling anyone that.
    The census is meant to give our government a picture of who we are.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Publius2016 says:

    There were more Elvis sightings than RGB!

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Elwood says:

    Counting is one thing. Apportionment is another.

    Liked by 4 people

  20. testpointwp says:

    This time around the census bureau wants to go “digital”. Cue the hacker hordes and state sponsored terrorists logging into census bureau servers in an attempt to acquire or submit information illegally.

    The last time the government tried a giant software project we got the fiasco of

    The political ramifications of a hacked census will make the last two years look like a cake walk.


  21. WSB says:

    I will post for a third time the second section of the 14th Amendment, which taken into consideration with the 19th seems to answer the question before SCOTUS.

    If men and women citizens have their votes impeded, as we have seen in Texas, after they concluded that around 60K illegal votes and 100K illegal registrations had been audited, then the Census must be narrowed for the purpose of ONLY counting citizen voters over the age of 18.

    Section 2.

    Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.


  22. covfefe999 says:

    Ginsburg spotted in a wooded area near the Supreme Court.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. eldjr says:

    Tawana Brawley 2.0

    A couple of ‘associates’ decided he needed some extra-curricular discipline.


  24. Rynn69 says:

    Mr. Chief Justice John Roberts,

    Sir, one of the Supreme Court Justices of our country has not been seen or heard from in over 69 days. Don’t you think it is appropriate to keep the country informed on what is going on?

    Can you even believe someone has to tell him this? Where is the leadership in our government? It is absolutely astounding.


  25. Pokey says:

    The carcass is still alive! 🙂


  26. Question [IS] : Will….DECEPTICON…Chief Justice John (Bushy-Bushy ’43) Roberts….KISS RBG’s Ring….and do her Bidding like he’s done in the past.


  27. EricStoner says:


    How many realize that “illegals’ are counted in the census and the population is used to assign Congressional seats?

    Hence, the “rush the border, let em in at all or any cost” Democrat position. In other words, citizens, country, second, party first! They want the voters and the seats and don’t care how much harm is dished out in this pursuit of power.

    Hence, the Democrat “2020 candidates” taking the position that we need “no wall,” “no ICE!”


  28. shipley130 says:

    I makes the prediction…Roberts the Liar will say it is unconstitutional to aks the question.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s