Trump Explores Citizenship Question

considering alternatives. Remember, the Supreme Court put the matter on hold. Joining me is Andy Harris Bloomberg News a legal reporter. So Andy, even Justice Department lawyers were confused about what was happening, and judges in Maryland and New York wants

some answers. Yeah, it was a little bit of whiplash on Wednesday, because on Tuesday, the Justice Department and Commerce Secretary Wilbert Ross had basically conceded the point and so that they were going forward with printing the census questionnaire omitting the citizenship question. That apparently raised the ire of the President, who tweeted out early the next day that those reports were fake and that they were pressing forward, prompting opponents of the question to go screaming back into

court and saying, wait a minute, what's going on? We need an explanation, And the judges said, yeah, us two. So there's a deadline in the Maryland Court of two pm today for an answer. The judge wants an answer. Are they going forward or are they not? Tell us that the two scenarios what happens in each case? Well, the problem is this. The Supreme Court last month ruled that the original pretext or proffer for why they wanted to add the citizenship question the first place wasn't true.

They called it contrived. They said that commerce does have the authority to add a question, but they have to go through the proper legal processes so that that question isn't added arbitrarily. And they said, well, go back and

do this. Underlying all this is a couple of months ago a Republican political strategist, Thomas Hoefeler died and his daughter discovered on his computer records that suggested that the real reason for adding the citizenship question all along was to suppress the response of minorities, forcing a redrawing of

congressional districts. Now, these rulings blocking the question had already been issued by the lower courts, and we're already been argued at the Supreme Court when this new evidence came to light. So the Maryland judge said, you know what, if the question doesn't get struck down, will reopen the case to look at this possible pretext of racial discrimination. But that seemed to have been mooted by the Supreme

Court's ruling. Now it's back in play. So to answer your question, either the issue is dead, which the Justice Department could still say today, or they're going forward, in which case Judge Hazel in Maryland is going to reopen that discrim nation question. And what about Judge Furman? Do we know yet Judge Furman in New York what he's doing. He's like like Judge Hazel in Greenbelt, Maryland, he too is waiting for an answer. But it's less clear what

the next steps will be. Well, now that the President has said, and when we heard this from other people in the wise, well maybe I'll issue an executive order and then I don't know, consider an addendum. However that would work. I don't know, But an executive order wouldn't that flout the Supreme Court's opinion and the injunction that the New York judge at least put in place. That's

a very good point, June. The problem with the executive orders again, you need not just be able to say because I said so, But there has to be a defensible legal reason, even coming from the President of the United States, one supposes. Uh. So, yeah, obviously raise a question with the court as to whether or not this newly proffered reason is any less pretextual than the last one.

And it seems that since the commiss Department said that they were abandoning the question, that they probably didn't have an additional reason that they could support with evidence in the case. I mean he he had said that, Um, it was because they wanted to enforce the Voting Rights Act, but the evidence was contrary to that. So now they have to come up with an explanation that the evidence matches. Yeah,

that's an issue. Uh. The Justice Bartment lawyers told Judge Hazel that they would come up with quote a new rationale, and the new rationale suggests bias definition that they didn't have it before. So they need to come up with a reason, and they need to come up with a legally defensible reason at the very least of the Supreme Court, not to the lower court judges. So let's talk about

timing here, because I've heard different things about timing. First of all, they said that it had to the answer had to be in They had to do it by the beginning of this month. So where does that leave them. There have been shifting reports on when they need to get this questionnaire printed and distributed. The under taking of the census is a big project. Obviously, it happens once every ten years. They need to hire people to go door door to door to question people that didn't respond

to the initial canvas. So this takes a lot of pre planning. And the initial reports were that they had to go to press with a questionnaire about June thirty. Apparently that might have been a softer date than believed um these Commerce secretary and when he waved the right flag earlier this week so that they were proceeding with printing the question So that doesn't necessarily say that they're actually rolling the presses, but that they're they're moving in

that direction. So the question is how late can they do this and still do all the other things that they need to do to get the senses done within their constitutionally mandated and statually statutorily mandated time frame. Do they have to do? They have to buy law started on April one. That's my understanding of the law. I'm

not an expert in that realm that that's what the state. Well, no one's an expert in this, because it's never come up before to this to this extent, to see see what's happening, and just go back and explain for a moment what the fears are of the people who are opposing this question, the a c l U and the New York AG, other civil rights organizations, what their fears are if this question is on the census, the fear is that households where people that aren't citizens reside may

be deterred from answering the question or answering it honestly, and that could result in an undercount. And the reason why that's important is undercounts on the census lead to UH redrawing up congressional lines, lead to reallocation of federal resources for public programs, and it could if you depress minority UH turn out en off result in shifting of congressional lines in a way that actually alters the makeup of Congress and could enhance the Republican Party's hold on

the House. And this maybe, uh, the Supreme Court's opinion seems to have broken. Uh. Trump's love affair with the Chief Justice John Roberts. He was so complimentary of different things, but in comments on Friday, he said he respects Roberts, but the Chief Justice didn't like the administration's arguments, and essentially he said come back. He didn't really say come back, please come back. He said, well you can't come back. Well,

we shall see Andy as this unfolds. I know you're waiting to see what happens by two pm, and we will have that information as soon as you get it. Thanks so much for joining us. Okay, sure, that's Andrew Harris, Bloomberg News Legal reporter. 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's Lash podcast. I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg m HM.