The ruling marks the opening round in a legal battle with potentially profound ramifications for federal policy and for politics at all levels, one that seems certain to reach the Supreme Court before the printing of census forms begins this summer.
Judge Jesse Furman of U.S. District Court in New York said that Wilbur Ross, the commerce secretary, broke “a veritable smorgasbord” of federal rules when he ordered the citizenship question added to the census nearly a year ago. Furman said Ross cherry-picked facts to support his views, ignored or twisted contrary evidence and hid deliberations from Census Bureau experts.
Furman also criticized Ross and his aides for giving false or misleading statements under oath as they struggled to explain their rationale for adding the question.
The upcoming census will determine which states gain or lose seats in the House of Representatives and how those lines are drawn when redistricting begins in 2021. The data is also used to determine the distribution of more than $600 billion yearly in grants and subsidies to state and local governments.
A coalition of 18 states led by the New York attorney general argued in court that the citizenship question was added to discourage noncitizens and legal immigrants from being counted in 2020, for fear that the Trump administration would target them for deportation or other purposes.
Because noncitizens tend to live in places that disproportionately vote Democratic, undercounting them in the census would most likely shift federal spending and political power to Republican areas. The 14th Amendment requires the House to be apportioned based on “the whole number of persons in each state,” and the Supreme Court has long ruled that the “whole number” includes noncitizens.
The Trump administration argued in court that Ross had the power to add the question and that past surveys had asked about citizenship. On Tuesday, a Justice Department spokeswoman, Kelly Laco, said officials were disappointed by the ruling and were still reviewing it.
Government lawyers could appeal the ruling or seek a stay in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — or go straight to the Supreme Court and ask justices to intervene.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.