Court Stops Wilbur Ross Deposition Over 2020 Census

asking whether residents are US citizens. Compartment of Justice, as you know, initiated the request for inclusion of the sense the citizenship question. We have been talking on the phone and received written Carl spun and some quite a lot

of parties on both sides of that question. But despite Ross's testimony, emails revealed that Ross was working to add a citizenship question to the census months before or the Justice Department's formal request in December of These contradictions are at the center of several lawsuits challenging the addition of a citizenship question, and now the Supreme Court has blocked

the plaintiffs from taking Ross's deposition. Joining me is Greg Store Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg We've discussed the question of whether the president can be disposed many times, but what's the argument over whether a cabinet secretary can

be disposed deposed? When the trial judge and the Second Circuit approved the deposition of Ross well June, cabinet secretaries generally can't be deposed, not because they're not relevant to a case, but because they are cabinet officials who are very busy, and and courts generally only allow such a

deposition in an extraordinary case. The question here is really whether this is an extraordinary case, given the testimony that you played there and the strong suggestions that the reasons for including this citizenship question we're not the ones that Secretary Ross put forward during that congressional testimony. The order from the court here was unsigned, and there's no explanation

of the reasoning. But it takes five justices. So could this be an attempt by the court to avoid revealing a five to four split in this first politically charged decisions since the addition of new Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It certainly has that feel to it um and that's in part because this is kind of an awkward compromise that they came out with Yes, they did say you can't depose Wilbur Ross, but they didn't go further and say, and oh, by the way, his testimony is not relevant

to your case at all. They didn't explicitly, for example, say you can't calm as a trial witness. Um. And in addition, the court refused to block the deposition of the acting Assistant Attorney General who is in charge of civil rights, a guy named John Gore. Um. The plaintiffs, states and groups that are suing want to ask him what he knows about the reasons behind the decision to

include the citizenship question. Uh. So we may well have another fight that comes up to the Supreme Court that that talks more specifically, are that deals more directly with both whether Mr Gore's testimony is relevant and what is that the plaintiffs are going to have to show ultimately to win their case and get the question removed from the From the the the Census justices Clarence Thomas and

Neil Gorshch would have gone further tell us about their descent. Yeah. Essentially, what they said was there's no reason to make a distinction between Wilburt Ross and John Gore. Uh. And Uh, the thing that would have made sense, given that it seems like the Court is likely to limit the scope of this case, would have been to essentially stop everything.

So right now we're in a situation where the case is still going forward and there may be a trial in a couple of weeks, and Justice course it's writing for the pair basically said, look, we should have gone further and made it clear that we need to stop this matter until the court can take up all these issues and issue a definitive ruling. Greg the Justice Department called this decision of the court a win for protecting the rights of the executive branch. Does it augur rulings

to come perhaps regarding President Trump? You know, it might. Uh. You know, this case has always felt to me a lot like the case involving the travel ban, where the question was where you're going to look behind the wording of what what the the executive rent branch put out and look at the motives of in that case, the president and in this case the Commerce Secretary, and in that case and and potentially in this case, the court seems to be saying, you know, we're not going to

second guess this administry when they put forward reasons, even if there's you know a lot of suggestions that those aren't the real reasons. We're going to take the reasons at face value and let them put put forward their preferred policies. On a sad note, Greg retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, says she's been diagnosed with dementia. Tell us about her legacy, remind us, Yeah, Well, she of course was the first

woman on the Supreme Court. Uh. She uh, you know, carved out a niche for herself on the court as the swing justice. She uh cast a huge vote in to reaffirm abortion rights. That was a big disappointment to the Conservatives who were behind her nomination by President Ronald Reagan. Uh. And she's also just kind of been a, you know, a symbol of women's rights and and the things that women can do. She she has a very no nonsense, uh nature to her, a very matter of fact nature

to her. She grew up on a on a ranch in Arizona. Uh. She famously when she had breast cancer in in the nineteen eighties, didn't miss any time on the Supreme Court bench. And then she later advised Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about how to handle chemotherapy and not miss any time on the court. Uh So, she's certainly, you know, a heroine and as Chief Justice John Roberts said,

a towering figure in American history. And has she been very active in her retirement until now She had been not in the last year or so so much, but but uh in she retired in two thousand six, she's been very active, and particularly in civic education. She uh founded a program called ice Civics, which has some online games and and materials that teach middle school and high school students about civics. And that was in her letter.

That was what she stresses that that work of getting getting Americans knowledgeable and active in civic affairs is crucial and she very much hopes that will continue even though she's no longer were able to take part in it. And I understand I didn't know that Supreme retired Supreme Court justice has still had offices and she gave her office to retire Justice Anthony Kennedy. She did. She did. That was the subject of an AP story earlier this week. That was one of the symbols of one of the

signals that she was stepping stepping back. Um uh yeah, So certainly an era has passed at the Supreme Court without her having Chambers there. All right, thanks so much, Greg. That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg's store. The trial over whether Harvard discriminated against Asian American applicants is now in its second week as District Judge Allison Burrows attempts to create as full a record as possible for a case that's likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

Joining me is Julie Parker, professor at the University of Maryland College of Education and author of the book Race on Campus. Julie, the plaintiffs lawyer, said in his opening statement that affirmative action wasn't on trial, but the plaintiffs want to eliminate all considerations of race in college admissions. So how do you view this lawsuit? Yeah, given you know the goal of the lawsuit, I would say, really, at the heart of it, they are putting affirmative action

on trial. Very much so. Harvard says the percentage of Asian Americans admitted to the college has grown by twent in the last eight years. The Asian Americans make up almost of the year's freshman class. What is the strongest point you see Harvard presenting in its defense besides numbers? Yeah, Before I continue, I said, give the disclosure that I served as a consulting expert on this case on the

side of Harvard. UM. I think the strongest point that they could make is that affirmative action helps Asian Americans by opening the door to different types of Asian American applicants UM, and also give institutions the ability to look beyond just test scores and g p A s. The plaintiffs, the applicants who say there were unfairly denied admission, are not being called by their attorney to explain their position. How unusual is that in a civil case? And might

the defense attorney call them? Yeah, I'm not exactly sure whether the defense plans to call them. Um. You know, I'm not a legal expert. I can't speak to how common or uncommon that is. But it is interesting you know that the plaintiffs themselves, UM wouldn't be called to testify. Let's try to put the suit into context. The use of race in college admissions has been under attack since

the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action without quatas embaki. Where does it stand now as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. Yeah, the Supreme Court has continued to affirm the legality of race conscious admissions and all that means in this context just being able to understand a student's race, ethnicity UM in assessing their application and their potential contribution to UM, to the student body in terms of UM will they contribute to a sort of a diverse and

UM vital student body. And so it's absolutely nothing like quotas. It's absolutely nothing like caps on any groups just because those things are illegal. Now, there was testimony today about Harvard also trying to maintain a souce from the from the plaintiffs from trying to maintain a socio economic balance as well, and the the concept of legacies getting an extra step up and donors of you know, the children of donors getting an extra step up in the admissions

process came up. How do you see that? Yeah, legacy admissions are complicated. UM. Yeah, I think that they do potentially undermine equity UM and within college admissions, and so they should really be given a really hard look at UM. Yeah, be really looked at UM with a critical eye, um but very much um. Legacy admissions definitely is a different

thing from a fromat of action. If if the plaintiffs got their way, would it would the admissions process only be based on grades and you know, scores in the essay t s UM they I believe Harvard would continue to do an other institutions would be able to do some level of a holistic review where they could look at other contextual factors. They would very much still look

at the essay or things like that. Um, but very much a student's racist A students race, ethnicity is you know, potentially a very big part of their life story, and they might not be able to access that information. So I think one writer in the New York Times even called it a potential threat of censorship, right if students aren't able to showcase right their ethnicity and their culture

and how those experiences have potentially affected them. When I was looking at the different kinds of evidence that have come in at the trial, I noticed that they have what they seem to be attacking is one part of the analysis which focuses on the individual. So the interview, the student activities report, and that is there any question that that can be allowed in as part of the

determination of whether or not to accept a student. UM. You know, I think it's just all sorts of the entire application is very much weighed and assessed in um, you know, informing the admissions offices, um assessment of a student. So really I think anything is fair game. All right, Well, this this trial is is still going on and it's going to be probably into another week at least. Thanks so much for joining us. That's Julie Park. She's a

professor at the University of Maryland College of Education. Aation her book is called Race on Campus. Of those admitted to Harvard's new freshman class, about twelve percent or Latino, sixteen percent African Americans, and a record high twenty three percent are Asian Americans. The plaintiff say that the Asian percentage should be at least forty percent. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg

dot com slash podcast. I'm June Rosso. This is Bloomberg