## Facts

- Individual plaintiffs sued the Secretary of Commerce and the Census Bureau Director in their official capacities, challenging the constitutionality of the 2000 decennial census questionnaires.
- The Census Bureau, under statutory authority delegated by Congress, mailed a short form to most households and a longer, more detailed form to a sample of households.
- Both forms asked how many people lived in the home as of April 1, 2000, and also asked demographic and socio-economic questions (including race/ethnicity, housing, education, income, and some disability/medical-related items).
- The forms warned that responses were required by law and that nonresponse could carry criminal penalties.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and permanent injunctive relief excusing them from answering many questions and preventing enforcement for nonresponse.
- The court entered a limited, party-agreed temporary restraining order preventing criminal action against the named plaintiffs during the litigation.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, agreeing there were no material fact disputes and that the case presented purely legal issues.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress’s power to require an “actual Enumeration” permits census questions beyond a simple population count, including demographic and socio-economic inquiries.
2. Whether requiring responses to census questions, including racial self-identification, violates the First Amendment as compelled speech.
3. Whether compelling responses to detailed census questions constitutes an unreasonable search or unconstitutional invasion of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether the census questions and enforcement scheme violate the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments (including due process or equal protection theories).

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The court held that Congress may direct the “manner” of the census and may require responses to questions beyond a headcount.
- The court rejected the First Amendment claim, concluding the questions sought factual, statistical information and did not compel ideological expression.
- The court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim, finding the questionnaire-based requirement reasonable in light of legitimate governmental objectives and confidentiality protections.
- The court rejected the remaining Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims for lack of a constitutional violation.

## Legal Principles

- The Constitution grants Congress broad discretion to conduct the decennial census “in such Manner as they shall by Law direct,” permitting inquiries reasonably related to legitimate governmental purposes beyond mere enumeration.
- Compelled disclosure of factual information for governmental data collection, without forcing affirmation of beliefs or viewpoints, generally does not constitute unconstitutional compelled speech.
- A census questionnaire requirement, without physical intrusion and supported by legitimate governmental interests and strong statutory confidentiality rules, is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.
- Due process and equal protection challenges to generally applicable census questions fail absent a showing of discriminatory targeting, deprivation without lawful authority, or other concrete constitutional defect.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the constitutionality of Census 2000’s short- and long-form questionnaires and denied relief excusing respondents from answering demographic questions, concluding that Congress may require such information and that the challenged questions did not violate the First, Fourth, Fifth, or Fourteenth Amendments.


Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Tex. 2000)