Is this what Executive Orders are for?

[Chris0nllyn]

The only valid response from the lower court was, “you are wrong to question the validity of asking the question. Case dismissed, and prosecution is advised to not waste the court’s time again.”

The folks with legal backgrounds think otherwise. Not sure what else to tell you.

 

[itsbob]

Um....just to point out what should be stunningly obvious...the courts are the arbiter. The courts ultimately would decide what is deemed "necessary".

Then the courts should have been involved when Obama unilaterally removed the citizenship question from the census.. adding something back that was there already shouldn't be questioned.

Unless you believe Judges should be activists and legislate from the bench.

 

[itsbob]

The court stated a reason it shouldn't be asked.

The states in the lawsuit demonstrated (as pointed out in #2 above) that if households don't reply due to fear of retribution, loss of federal funding can occur. The government's own numbers showed that if the question was included, 6.5 million people won’t respond to the census.

The Census Act doesn't give comeplete discretion to Ross and nothing in that Act nor the Administrative Procedure Act says that courts can't review Ross' decisions.

Reasonable expectation would be that those 6.5 million that don't respond would be illegals, and shouldn't be counted for the purposes of the census anyways..

Otherwise, they will answer, and they will be counted and funds and seats in the house will be appropriated on false pretenses.

 

[This_person]

The folks with legal backgrounds think otherwise. Not sure what else to tell you.

I am just not okay with the court deciding the court has authority to intervene, especially when they say “we normally wouldn’t, but...Trump”

I am shocked that you are unable to articulate any opinion of your own, seemingly taking the court’s position as gospel

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I am just not okay with the court deciding the court has authority to intervene, especially when they say “we normally wouldn’t, but...Trump”

I am shocked that you are unable to articulate any opinion of your own, seemingly taking the court’s position as gospel

Where do you thin kthe court said "we normally wouldn’t, but...Trump"? I'm not going to be like itsbob and ask you where they specifically said that, but I'd love to see what you read in the opinion that would lead you to believe that.

"Unable to articulate"? What are you talking about? We've spent pages upon pages IN THIS THREAD discussing it. Just because I agree with the court does not mean I'm unable to articulate something.

I don't know what else to tell you and have zero desire to try and articulate (again) why they stepped in to someone who already has their mind made up that they shouldn't have or have the authority to do so.

 

[This_person]

Where do you thin kthe court said "we normally wouldn’t, but...Trump"?

The Government invokes our steady refusal to “endorse standing theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 414 (2013), particularly speculation about future unlawful conduct, Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 105 (1983). But we are satisfied that, in these circumstances, respondents have met their burden of showing that third parties will likely react in predictable ways to the citizenship question, even if they do so unlawfully and despite the requirement that the Government keep individual answers confidential.​

This is the first one - we have a steady refusal to be involved in something like this, but "in these circumstances" (Trump), we'll say it's ok.

Review is not available, however, “to the extent that” a relevant statute precludes it, §701(a)(1), or the agency action is “committed to agency discretion by law,” §701(a)(2). The Government argues that the Census Act commits to the Secretary’s unreviewable discretion decisions about what questions to include on the decennial census questionnaire.
We disagree.
...
In order to give effect to the command that courts set aside agency action that is an abuse of discretion, and to honor the presumption of judicial review, we have read the §701(a)(2) exception for action committed to agency discretion “quite narrowly, restricting it to ‘those rare circumstances where the relevant statute is drawn so that a court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.’ ”
...
Because this is not a case in which there is “no law to apply,” Overton Park, 401 U. S., at 410, the Secretary’s decision is subject to judicial review.​

They go through great pains here to show that they have no jurisdiction over discretionary matters given to the executive by the legislative, then say, "but, Trump."

At the heart of this suit is respondents’ claim that the Secretary abused his discretion in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question. We review the Secretary’s exercise of discretion under the deferential “arbitrary and capricious” standard. See 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). Our scope of review is “narrow”:​

So, they are going to be narrow here, after a full section explaining that he has every right to exercise his discretion, they now are going to review his discretion - because, Trump. So, what do they decide?

We may not substitute our judgment for that of the Secretary, ibid., but instead must confine ourselves to ensuring that he remained “within the bounds of reasoned decision making,” Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U. S. 87, 105 (1983).​

The Secretary was required to consider the evidence and give reasons for his chosen course of action. He did so. It is not for us to ask whether his decision was “the best one possible” or even whether it was “better than the alternatives.” FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., 577 U. S. _, _ (2016) (slip op., at 30). By second guessing the Secretary’s weighing of risks and benefits and penalizing him for departing from the Bureau’s inferences and assumptions, JUSTICE BREYER—like the District Court—substitutes his judgment for that of the agency.[/indent]

That's right, they decide they have no business being involved in his decision making!!

So, why are they still involved?

We now consider the District Court’s determination that the Secretary’s decision must be set aside because it rested on a pretextual basis, ...

...in reviewing agency action, a court is ordinarily limited to evaluating the agency’s contemporaneous explanation in light of the existing administrative record...That principle reflects the recognition that further judicial inquiry into “executive motivation” represents “a substantial intrusion” into the workings of another branch of Government and should normally be avoided.
...
... a court may not reject an agency’s stated reasons for acting simply because the agency might also have had other unstated reasons.

...a court may not set aside an agency’s policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration’s priorities. Agency policymaking is not a “rarified technocratic process, unaffected by political considerations or the presence of Presidential power.”
…
Finally, we have recognized a narrow exception to the general rule against inquiring into “the mental processes of administrative decisionmakers.” Overton Park, 401 U. S., at 420. On a “strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior,” such an inquiry may be warranted and may justify extra-record discovery. Ibid.​

So, they have no jurisdiction - even if the agency (secretary) "might also have had other, unstated reasons."

You're with me so far? They normally wouldn't be involved, they have no right to question the discretionary authority unless there is some egregious reason to do so. This is what they've stated so far. They've decided to take a look at it, because, you know, TRUMP, but they still admit they should avoid being involved in discretionary matters. So, they know they shouldn't be involved, but choose to anyway.

What conclusion do they reach?

They should be involved if there's "bad faith or improper behavior."

We agree with the Government that the District Court should not have ordered extra-record discovery when it did. At that time, the most that was warranted was the order to complete the administrative record. But the new material that the parties stipulated should have been part of the administrative record—which showed, among other things, that the VRA played an insignificant role in the decision making process—largely justified such extra record discovery as occurred (which did not include the deposition of the Secretary himself). We accordingly review the District Court’s ruling on pretext in light of all the evidence in the record before the court, including the extra-record discovery.​

That's right - the court sought information it was not allowed to seek, but since it was bad for the secretary, we'll let that slide and look at it.

It is hardly improper for an agency head to come into office with policy preferences and ideas, discuss them with affected parties, sound out other agencies for support, and work with staff attorneys to substantiate the legal basis for a preferred policy. The record here reflects the sometimes involved nature of Executive Branch decision making, but no particular step in the process stands out as inappropriate or defective. And yet, viewing the evidence as a whole, we share the District Court’s conviction that the decision to reinstate a citizenship question cannot be adequately explained in terms of DOJ’s request for improved citizenship data to better enforce the VRA.​

So, they said they should NOT be involved, and they should not second guess the executive branch even if the "agency might also have had other unstated reasons."

But, they don't like the reasons (Trump), so....

In these unusual circumstances, the District Court was warranted in remanding to the agency, and we affirm that disposition. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U. S. 729, 744 (1985). We do not hold that the agency decision here was substantively invalid. But agencies must pursue their goals reasonably.​

So, it's unreasonable. They shouldn't have the information, they state they're not allowed to care about the extraneous information, but they don't like it, because....Trump.

"Unable to articulate"? What are you talking about? We've spent pages upon pages IN THIS THREAD discussing it. Just because I agree with the court does not mean I'm unable to articulate something.

That's the first time you said you agreed with the court. I've repeatedly asked you your opinion, and you've repeatedly given me the court's reasoning. This is the first time you've said your opinion IS the court's opinion, without a word of change (apparently)

I don't know what else to tell you and have zero desire to try and articulate (again) why they stepped in to someone who already has their mind made up that they shouldn't have or have the authority to do so.

As I've stated and now provided in great detail - THEY say they don't have the authority to be involved, except....Trump.