Litigation
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THEIR RULE 60(B)(2) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT & REQUEST FOR INDICATIVE RULING UNDER RULE 62.1(A)
Advancing Justice | AAJC and MALDEF filed these documents on June 14 that show that the current Chief of Staff to the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau was in direct contact with a Republican redistricting strategist in 2015, concerning issues related to the citizenship question.
Civil rights groups ask federal judge to reconsider conspiracy ruling on census citizenship question
Civil rights groups who had sued the government over its addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census have asked a federal judge in Maryland to reconsider his ruling on the matter after new evidence in the case emerged last week.
The request, filed Monday night by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), said the new findings show the Trump administration sought to intentionally discriminate against Latinos and immigrants of color when it added the question.
Attorneys Want U.S. District Judge to Review New Evidence in Census Citizenship Case
- Contact
Washington, D.C. — Advancing Justice | AAJC (Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC) filed a motion late last night to ask U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt, to review new relevant evidence that shows the Trump transition team, administration officials, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) conspired to add the citizenship question to the 2020 Census for a racially discriminatory purpose.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ RULE 60(B)(2) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT & REQUEST FOR INDICATIVE RULING UNDER RULE 62.1(A)
This motion seeks relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence of discriminatory animus and unconstitutional intent by Secretary Ross and the political appointees and operatives involved in adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
LATINO VOTERS, CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS REACH SETTLEMENT WITH TEXAS OVER PURGING OF VOTER ROLLS
- Contact
(San Antonio, TX) – The Texas Secretary of State will reform the way it identifies voters for investigation of U.S. citizenship and withdraw the election advisory sent to all counties earlier this year, according to a settlement agreement reached today with civil rights groups.
The lawsuit was filed by Latino voters and organizations represented by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), and Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), Asian Americans Advancing Justice| AAJC (Advancing Justice|AAJC) later joined the legal challenge. The settlement with Texas officials comes three months after state officials began singling out naturalized citizens for investigation and possible removal from voter rolls based solely on the fact that they were born outside the United States.
Download the settlement here above.
NPR: Appeal To Census Lawsuit Ruling Adds Uncertainty To Citizenship Question's Fate
The plaintiffs are challenging Hazel's conclusion that there was not enough evidence showing that the decision to add the question by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, was motivated by bias against immigrant communities of color, including Latinos and Latinas, and intended to depress census participation among these groups.
Maryland Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Addition of A Census Citizenship Question
- Contact
Washington, D.C. – A federal court in Maryland today ruled the Trump administration cannot add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because it violates the Enumeration Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Federal Judge Hazel Issues Final Ruling In Favor of Advancing Justice | AAJC and MALDEF. No citizenship question on the 2020 Census. In his ruling, Judge Hazel noted:
“In his cursory wave-of-the-hand treatment of the obligation to pretest survey materials, the Secretary (Ross) failed to identify any plausible rationale for deviating from the Bureau’s rigorous pretesting standards.”