The long-awaited argument in the Trump v. New York case exposed a court looking for an exit rather than a merit decision in the census dispute. The judges appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s interpretation of “persons” to exclude undocumented persons, while also expressing skepticism that the court should intervene at this stage. In particular, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett was one of those who expressed skepticism about the exclusive interpretation. As previously stated, I believe that the government’s interpretation runs counter to the longstanding meaning of “persons” in the Constitution, which includes everyone living in the United States regardless of status. Some of the judges have refused to micromanage communications between a president and a federal agency by prohibiting the transmission of certain information. However, one thing stood out in the argument: the use of the term “illegal alien” by various judges, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The term has been referred to as “microaggression” in some states and universities.
It concerns the census provision of the Constitution, which provides that “the representatives shall be divided among the different states according to their number, counting the total number of persons in each state.” US Const. To change. XIV, § 2. This obligation obliges the Federal Government to carry out an “actual enumeration” every ten years in a “manner instructed by the Congress”. Art. I, § 2, Cl. 3.
Congress passed laws instructing the Secretary of Commerce to “conduct a ten-year census * * * in a form and content that he determines”. 13 USC 141 (a) (Census Act). Accordingly, by December 31, 2020, the secretary must “[t]The listing of the total population by state … as required for the distribution of representatives in Congress among the various states. “13 USC 141 (b) (the Secretary’s Report or the Report). Once this information has been obtained, the President must “send a statement to Congress showing the total number of persons in each state … and the number of representatives to which each state would be entitled … using the method used as method with equals Proportions is known. “This happens within a week of the first day of the first regular session of the next Congress. 2 USC 2a (a).
The Trump administration announced it would not illegally include those in the country in the census. On July 21, 2020, the President issued a memorandum to the Minister of Commerce on the population for the 2020 census. 85 Fed. Reg.44.679 (July 23, 2020). The memorandum reads: “It is the policy of the United States to exclude from allocation as much as possible and consistent with aliens who are not legally immigrant under the Immigration and Citizenship Act, as amended delegated discretion is the executive department. “I would. at 44,680.
As I have already stated, this narrow interpretation is in contradiction to longstanding case law. That point was made by Barrett, who told the Attorney General that “[a] Lots of historical evidence and years of practice really negatively impact your position. “This is the same Barrett whom the Democrats denounced as an ideological robotic shill put on trial to vote for the government on both the ACA and census cases. Indeed, the absurd conspiracy theory on the ACA case has been voiced by various senators to justify their votes against Barrett.
The judges declined to regulate communications between the President and the Department of Commerce within the industry, particularly after the attorney agreed that the same information could be sent in separate envelopes and would not violate the underlying order in the case:
Roberts:… It seems to me that you are really asking for a gag order to the Secretary of Commerce regarding his communications to the President. Let’s say the secretary takes the census and prepares the spreadsheet exactly how you want and puts it in an envelope to send to the president. But also in a separate envelope, gives information about the number of illegal foreigners. And he sends both envelopes to the president. Is that fine with you
General Underwood: (48:42) Yes. This does not violate the order. There is no gag order to the Minister of Commerce. He may be asked for and respond to all kinds of information, but the 141, the particular statements and transmissions that are effective, are not just the conveyances of information. They work as steps in the breakdown. [crosstalk 00:22:09].
This statement has been made repeatedly by judges who questioned the court’s position in regulating the transfer of such information between the White House and federal agencies.
During the dispute, one sentence was repeated by various judges: “illegal alien”. It’s a term we discussed earlier because of our efforts to ban its use, despite the fact that it makes frequent references to the status of individuals in statutes, policies, and cases, including the Trump Directive at issue in this instance. Judges like Roberts, Thomas, Barrett, and Sotomayor all used the term used by the Trump Administration. For example, Justice Sotomayor remarked, “If he wants to tabulate and exclude illegal aliens, we have a case to decide whether the word allows persons as used in the Statute and Constitution who live here to exclude illegal aliens? That is the legal question. “
As mentioned earlier, schools like the University of Maryland have advised faculties and students not to use the term to promote the “dehumanization of a whole group of people.” California has banned the term from government documents as offensive. Colorado lawmakers have also denounced its use. The Library of Congress has discontinued the use of the term. Authors such as Lawrence Downes of the New York Times said “illegal” is “a code word for racial and ethnic hatred”.
The Supreme Court was announced in a previous ruling to avoid the term unless it quoted directly from an underlying law or policy.
The judges used the term broadly and not just to quote from the policy of the administration in yesterday’s argument. They also used “undocumented” as a term. While the Directive applies to persons who are not in legal immigration status, the general term “illegal alien” is used in the pleadings.
I previously stated that the use of the term is not inherently racist, but rather a general legal and legal indication of the legal status of individuals. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t see how it is received by many in our country. For this reason I tend to use “undocumented”. However, this is a decision that people in good faith cannot agree on. I’m not assuming its use is caused by racism in court or by owning our locations.