2nd Fed court blocks President Trump's attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Tweet text:
Hansi Lo Wang
@hansilowang
BREAKING: A second federal court has blocked President Trump’s attempt to exclude unauthorized immigrants from the census numbers that determine each state’s share of House seats. The 3-judge court in California declares Trump's memo is unconstitutional.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7274431/City-of-San-Jose-Oct-22-2020-Order.pdf…
Plaintiffs, which include the State of California, numerous cities and counties across the country, a school district, a public interest organization, and citizens, challenge the legality of the Presidential Memorandum.

1 We conclude that the Presidential Memorandum violates the Constitution and two statutes. Specifically, the Presidential Memorandum violates the Apportionment and Enumeration Clauses of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; the constitutional separation of powers; the Census Act of 1954; and the Reapportionment Act of 1929. Our decision is not based on any preference we might have on the question of whether, as a matter of policy, undocumented immigrants should be included for purposes of determining the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. The Presidential Memorandum provides reasons for its policy, but those are not for us to review. Rather, our conclusion is based upon our...
...our determination of what the law requires. The policy which the Presidential Memorandum attempts to enact has already been rejected by the Constitution, the applicable statutes, and 230 years of history. Having considered the parties’submissions; the parties’ oral arguments at the October 8, 2020 hearing; the relevant law; and the record in this case, we GRANT Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and DENY Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
5:09 AM · Oct 22, 2020

[marybourg]

1. This is the rare case where the Constitution

is absolutely clear: “persons” are to be counted. The founders were familiar with the word “citizens”. They chose not to use it. No normal president would have brought such a case. And, of course, the SC being full of “strict constructionists “ , well, we know how they would have to rule. 😂.