## Facts

- Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced he had decided to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census.
- The Census Bureau recommended obtaining citizenship data through administrative records and statistical methods rather than adding a direct question to the questionnaire.
- Ross stated that the Department of Justice (DOJ) requested the question to obtain block-level citizenship data for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- The administrative record and related evidence indicated that Ross had been seeking to add the question early in his tenure and that he solicited DOJ to submit the VRA request.
- The State of New York and other states, local governments, and organizations sued, alleging the decision would reduce responses in households with noncitizens, leading to an undercount that could affect apportionment and federal funding.
- After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the stated justification was not the real reason for the decision, and it remanded to the agency.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment to review the legality and reviewability of the Secretary’s decision.

## Issues

1. Is the Secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the census reviewable under the APA, or is it committed to agency discretion by law?
2. Does adding a citizenship question violate the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause?
3. Does adding the question violate the Census Act, including provisions encouraging use of administrative records?
4. Did the Secretary violate the APA by giving an explanation that did not match the record (including whether the VRA rationale was a pretext)?

## Decision

- The Court held the Secretary’s decision was reviewable under the APA; the Census Act supplies standards that allow judicial review.
- The Court held that including a citizenship question is not prohibited by the Enumeration Clause.
- The Court held that the Secretary acted within the authority granted by the Census Act in choosing to include a citizenship question and to rely on administrative records as part of the overall approach.
- The Court held that, although the Secretary’s policy choice could fall within statutory discretion, the APA requires a reasoned explanation that reflects the real basis for the action.
- The Court concluded the stated VRA enforcement rationale did not match the record and therefore could not support the decision; the explanation appeared contrived.
- The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for the agency to provide a lawful explanation or reconsider the decision.

## Legal Principles

- The Enumeration Clause gives Congress broad authority to conduct the census “in such Manner” as Congress directs, and longstanding practice permits questions beyond a simple headcount if reasonably related to conducting the enumeration.
- The Census Act (including 13 U.S.C. § 141(a)) grants the Secretary broad discretion over the “form and content” of the census questionnaire, including whether to ask about citizenship.
- Agency actions taken under the Census Act are generally reviewable under the APA unless a statute clearly bars review or provides no manageable standards.
- The APA requires reasoned decisionmaking: an agency must offer an explanation that fits the evidence in the administrative record; courts need not accept an explanation that conflicts with the record.
- When the record shows a mismatch between the stated reason and the actual basis for the decision, a court may remand to the agency for a genuine explanation consistent with the APA.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that adding a citizenship question is within the Secretary of Commerce’s constitutional and statutory authority and is subject to APA review, but it also held that the justification given—framed as a DOJ-driven need for VRA enforcement data—did not match the record; because the APA requires an honest, reasoned explanation, the Court remanded the matter to the agency for further action consistent with that requirement.


Department of Commerce v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019)