Supreme Court blocks ruling that mandated Ross deposition on census citizenship question

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: The Hill

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a lower court order requiring Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to sit for a deposition in lawsuits challenging the administration’s decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.

The court granted Solicitor General Noel Francisco’s request to stay the Sept. 21 district court ruling, but denied the part of Francisco's request that asked the court to block earlier rulings requiring testimony from John Gore, the acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

The lower court rulings came from Judge Jesse Furman, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in two cases that have been consolidating challenging the citizenship question.

Challengers, which include a coalition of immigrant rights groups and 17 blue-leaning states, say they need the depositions to fully understand the basis for the additional question, which they argue will scare people in immigrant communities away from responding to the census.


Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/412654-supreme-court-blocks-ruling-that-mandated-ross-deposition-on-census

[AZ8theist]

1. FASCISM

Has come to America.

Thank you. All of you "disinterested" voters in 2000, 2002, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016.

Thanks you SOOO FUCKING MUCH for handing your country over to Nazis.

Think "both sides" are awful??

If you think that, YOU ARE FUCKING STUPID. YOU DO NOT DESERVE DEMOCRACY.

Say goodbye to abortion rights, contraception rights, LGBTQ rights, free speech rights, voting rights.....

Name a right. You will lose it.
Repukes are the party of FEUDALISM. Their goal is not returning to 1950....or 1850....it's returning to 1250!!!!

[Jake Stern]

2. Per the article Justice Ginsburg supported the stay

She's far from being a fascist.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

3. Your post is disturbingly rational. Are you sure you intended it to appear at DU? NT

[Jake Stern]

4. Should hope so

Should also hope some people will stop, take a breath and RESEARCH before posting.

If they did, they'd realize these stays are quite common with SCOTUS and that it isn't the end of the world.

[SunSeeker]

10. If you followed your own advice, you would be concerned by what Gorsuch did here.

Because the order was brief and unsigned, its reasoning is unknown. Presumably, the rationale is that if Ross were questioned under oath, he might be forced to contradict his previous sworn testimony, thus exposing himself to criminal liability. Most importantly, he wouldn’t be able to take those words back, even if the Court later held that he didn’t have to testify. The damage would be done.

With Gore, however, there’s no previous testimony, and thus no liability for a perjury or lying to Congress. So there’s no downside to his testifying right away, even if the Court ultimately rules he doesn’t have to do so.

It’s not known who wrote the opinion for the Court, although the fact that it’s a compromise, and that only two justices – Gorsuch, joined by Thomas – dissented from the decision makes it look like Chief Justice Roberts’ handiwork.

Justice Gorsuch’s dissent is bizarre. It totally misstates the nature of the lawsuit, ignores the evidence of perjury, and essentially decides the entire case before it’s even been heard. Even for an interim order, it’s a very peculiar bit of reasoning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-splits-the-difference-on-censusgate-scandal?ref=scroll

[LanternWaste]

19. Grade A irony for my Tuesday morning.

Whether intentional or not (I'm guessing not).

[sharedvalues]

6. The whole court is compromised.

What if Ginsburg did it strategically? Struck a deal with Roberts to vote for this since it had the votes already? This is not unusually done at SCOTUS- strategic voting by justices.


Anything this court with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch does is flatly illegitimate.

The president who nominated them got elected with the help of his personal lawyer breaking the law. And the GOP senate majority is illegitimate too.
No action by this court is legit. Not until Dems add four more justices.

[SunSeeker]

11. Gorsuch is definitely illegitimate. RBG is not.

RBG did not vote to stay all depos, only an interim stay of the Wilbur Ross depo. Gorsuch, on the other hand, would have issued a bizarre sweeping stay of all discovery:

Because the order was brief and unsigned, its reasoning is unknown. Presumably, the rationale is that if Ross were questioned under oath, he might be forced to contradict his previous sworn testimony, thus exposing himself to criminal liability. Most importantly, he wouldn’t be able to take those words back, even if the Court later held that he didn’t have to testify. The damage would be done.

With Gore, however, there’s no previous testimony, and thus no liability for a perjury or lying to Congress. So there’s no downside to his testifying right away, even if the Court ultimately rules he doesn’t have to do so.

It’s not known who wrote the opinion for the Court, although the fact that it’s a compromise, and that only two justices – Gorsuch, joined by Thomas – dissented from the decision makes it look like Chief Justice Roberts’ handiwork.

Justice Gorsuch’s dissent is bizarre. It totally misstates the nature of the lawsuit, ignores the evidence of perjury, and essentially decides the entire case before it’s even been heard. Even for an interim order, it’s a very peculiar bit of reasoning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-splits-the-difference-on-censusgate-scandal?ref=scroll

[sharedvalues]

15. Partisan and illegitimate. Ugh.

[SunSeeker]

9. The order was unsigned, and it only stayed the depo of Wilbur Ross, not others.

Unlike RBG, Gorsuch and Thomas would have stayed everything:

Because the order was brief and unsigned, its reasoning is unknown. Presumably, the rationale is that if Ross were questioned under oath, he might be forced to contradict his previous sworn testimony, thus exposing himself to criminal liability. Most importantly, he wouldn’t be able to take those words back, even if the Court later held that he didn’t have to testify. The damage would be done.

With Gore, however, there’s no previous testimony, and thus no liability for a perjury or lying to Congress. So there’s no downside to his testifying right away, even if the Court ultimately rules he doesn’t have to do so.

It’s not known who wrote the opinion for the Court, although the fact that it’s a compromise, and that only two justices – Gorsuch, joined by Thomas – dissented from the decision makes it look like Chief Justice Roberts’ handiwork.

Justice Gorsuch’s dissent is bizarre. It totally misstates the nature of the lawsuit, ignores the evidence of perjury, and essentially decides the entire case before it’s even been heard. Even for an interim order, it’s a very peculiar bit of reasoning.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-splits-the-difference-on-censusgate-scandal?ref=scroll

[sharedvalues]

5. Illegitimate Supreme Court blocks ruling.

Kavanaugh is illegitimate
Gorsuch is illegitimate

Impeach the Trump Judges.

[former9thward]

7. All nine joined in blocking.

Are they all illegitimate?

[SunSeeker]

8. No, all 9 did not vote to block all depos, just the Ross deposition.

Justice Neil Gorsuch filed an opinion, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, concurring in part and dissenting in part from the court’s decision.

Gorsuch said he would have granted the government’s request and blocked all of the court rulings.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/412654-supreme-court-blocks-ruling-that-mandated-ross-deposition-on-census

Do you think Gorsuch is legitimately on SCOTUS? How about Thomas?

[iluvtennis]

12. Yes, I believe Gorsch is illegitimately on the SC. That's Merrick Garland's spot.

[SunSeeker]

21. Exactly. nt

[former9thward]

17. The OP was referring to the Ross deposition not all of them.

If you don't understand that read the title of the thread. It is on top. What is your definition of "legitimately"?

[SunSeeker]

22. I was referring to your post, which implied all 9 voted for a broad stay. They did not.

Funny how others here don't struggle with saying Gorsuch is illegitimate. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2184483

[sharedvalues]

16. Actions they take are illegitimate.

Yes. Decisions and votes in SCOTUS are often the result of behind the scenes negotiation and compromise.
Those negotiations are HEAVILY biased by the presence of two illegitimate justices.

Decisions of this Supreme Court are illegitimate, until Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are removed, or four new judges are added to balance out their influence.

[riversedge]

13. allows the case, led by NY AG Barbara Underwood, to proceed w/ more discovery.........

Seems this is good-Underwood does very good work.




https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/supreme-court-halts-commerce-secretary-deposition-census
Supreme Court Halts Deposition Of Commerce Secretary In Challenge To Census Citizenship Question

The court did, however, allow the deposition of a senior Justice Department official and other discovery to proceed at this time.
Headshot of Chris Geidner
Chris Geidner

BuzzFeed News Reporter



Last updated on October 22, 2018, at 10:34 p.m. ET

Posted on October 22, 2018, at 8:24 p.m. ET



The Supreme Court stopped the deposition of one senior Trump administration official involved in the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in an order Monday, while allowing another to proceed.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's ordered deposition will not go ahead at this time, under the Supreme Court's unsigned order, but the deposition of the acting head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, John Gore, will take place.
..............................................

The apparent compromise allows the case, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, to proceed with more discovery.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. SCOTUSblog: Justices block Ross deposition in census dispute

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Mon, October 22nd, 2018 9:55 pm

Justices block Ross deposition in census dispute

The Supreme Court gave the federal government a partial victory tonight in a dispute over discovery in the challenge to the government’s decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census. Without any publicly recorded objections, the justices kept on hold plans to depose Wilbur Ross, the Secretary of Commerce, about the decision. And although the justices rejected the government’s request to block other discovery in the case – specifically, the deposition of John Gore, the acting head of the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, and additional discovery outside the administrative record for the decision – they hinted that the government might be able to get broader relief further down the road.

The challenge to the citizenship question was filed in a federal court in New York by a group of states, cities and counties. When he announced the decision to reinstate the citizenship question, which had been part of the census for much of the 19th century and part of the 20th century, Ross indicated that including a question about citizenship would help the Department of Justice to enforce federal voting rights laws. But the challengers contend that the question would skew the results of the census, because undocumented immigrants – fearing deportation – may be hesitant to respond.

Earlier this year, the trial court granted the challengers’ request to depose Ross and Gore, over the government’s objection that the decision to restore the citizenship question was “backed by a voluminous administrative record,” so that no inquiry into Ross’ personal motivations was necessary. With depositions scheduled for early October and a trial scheduled for early November, on October 9 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – who fields emergency requests from the geographic area that includes New York – put the depositions on hold and ordered the challengers to respond by October 11.

Tonight the full court acted on the government’s request. First, the justices granted the government’s plea to block the deposition of Ross, relief for which the government needed at least five votes. There were no publicly recorded dissents from this part of tonight’s order, so there is no way to know whether all of the justices supported this outcome or whether some were opposed but opted not to announce that opposition. ... Ross’ deposition will remain on hold at least until next Monday, October 29, at 4 p.m.; if the federal government files a brief seeking review of the district court’s ruling, the deposition will remain on hold until the justices rule on the new request for review and, if that request is granted, rule on the merits of the discovery dispute.
....

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices block Ross deposition in census dispute, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 22, 2018, 9:55 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/10/justices-block-ross-deposition-in-census-dispute/

[brooklynite]

20. Before getting irate about this...

It only takes four Justices to accept a case. If this wasn't accepted, it's because at least one of the liberal Justices said "no".

[Jim Lane]

23. This was a stay -- not a permanent block and not a cert petition

You're correct about four Justices to accept a case (by granting a petition for certiorari), but what's at issue here is an interim stay pending appeal.

An important factor in a stay is irreparable injury. Ross has the right to appeal the order that he be deposed. If, while his appeal is making its way forward, he actually is deposed, then his right to appeal is effectively nullified.

If Ross is deposed, and it's ultimately found that he didn't have to be, he's been injured. If his deposition is stayed, and it's ultimately found that he has to be, then his deposition can still go forward, and the only injury is some delay in completing that part of a case that has lots of other discovery to be completed anyway. My assumption would be that the Court saw the potential hardship to Ross as being greater than the potential hardship to the plaintiff.

He may still be deposed, if the ultimate resolution of any appeal is to affirm the District Court's decision.

ETA: Come to think of it, I think this case would be by appeal rather than by certiorari, but it's been many moons since I took the course in federal jurisdiction. The basic point is that this interim stay is not a sign of impending fascism or the like. It's really no big deal. On the limited information I have (not having read the linked article), I would've voted for the stay.