A Second Federal Court Just Struck Down the 2020 Census Citizenship Question

A court said the question “threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announces a lawsuit filed by California challenging a citizenship question on the 2020 census.Rich Pedroncelli/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

A second federal judge on Wednesday struck down a controversial question about US citizenship that the Trump administration added to the 2020 census, writing that it “threatens the very foundation of our democratic system.” The question, which the Trump administration officially announced in March 2017, would have asked 2020 census respondents whether they are US citizens.

Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California sided with the state of California in its lawsuit against the administration, finding that the question would significantly depress response rates from Latino communities and noncitizens. A federal judge in New York first blocked the addition of the question in January in response to a lawsuit from New York and 16 other states. Seeborg agreed that the citizenship question violated the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, which prohibits federal agencies from acting in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. But he went further, finding that the question violated the Constitution itself, which requires the Census Bureau to undertake an “actual enumeration” of the total population.

“The record in this case has clearly established that including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public,” he wrote. “This question is, however, quite effective at depressing self-response rates among immigrants and noncitizens, and poses a significant risk of distorting the apportionment of congressional representation among the states.”

When the question was first announced, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, claimed it was necessary to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. But Seeborg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, dismissed that argument as “mere pretext” and called Ross’ push for the question “a cynical search to find some reason, any reason, or an agency request to justify that preordained result.” Ross’ decision “was arbitrary and capricious, represented an abuse of discretion, and was otherwise not in accordance with law,” he concluded.

The census determines how $880 billion in federal funding is allocated, how much representation states receive, and how political districts are drawn. A reduction in participation by Latinos and noncitizens would shift economic and political power away from those areas, like California, where they live. “The State of California demonstrated that it will suffer a loss of federal funding and face a substantial risk of losing political representation directly traceable to the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census,” Seeborg wrote.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of the citizenship question on April 23. Read Seeborg’s ruling here: 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend