Jacqueline Thomsen


Attorney General William Barr said Monday that he believes the Trump administration can legally add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, though the Supreme Court ruled against its inclusion last month.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Barr said he has been in regular contact with President Trump about the question, which the president is determined to see featured on the decennial survey.

“I agree with him that the Supreme Court decision was wrong,” Barr told the AP. The attorney general added that he thinks there is “an opportunity potentially to cure the lack of clarity that was the problem and we might as well take a shot at doing that.”

Barr declined to provide further details to the wire service on how the question will be added to the census.

However, the AP cited a senior official who said President Trump is expected to issue a presidential memorandum to the Commerce Department directing it to include the citizenship question on the 2020 census. Action is expected to be taken in the coming days.

The Hill has reached out to the Justice and Commerce departments for further comment.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling last month, found that the administration’s stated reason for adding the citizenship question to the census didn’t match up with the evidence in the case.

The justices blocked the question from appearing on the survey for the time being but left an opening for the Commerce Department to provide another reason for the question’s inclusion. The Trump administration had claimed the question was necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Opponents of the question argued that its inclusion on the census would lead to an inaccurate count of the population, as immigrants might be discouraged from participating. The Department of Justice (DOJ) had argued that the data would not be used for purposes beyond compliance with the voting law, but critics said the perception was enough to cause individuals to skip the question or the survey altogether.

The DOJ initially appeared ready to accept defeat in the legal battles, announcing Tuesday that census materials would be printed without the question. The administration had said in court filings that census materials needed to be finalized by June 30 for a July 1 printing deadline.

But Trump one day later tweeted that those efforts would move forward, appearing to catch even DOJ lawyers on the case by surprise.

“The tweet this morning was the first I had heard of the president’s position on this issue, just like the plaintiffs and Your Honor. I do not have a deeper understanding of what that means at this juncture other than what the president has tweeted,” Joshua Gardner, a DOJ attorney, told a federal judge during a teleconference Wednesday.

“But obviously, as you can imagine, I am doing my absolute best to figure out what’s going on,” he added.

The DOJ also announced late Sunday that it was pulling its entire legal team for the citizenship question off the case, and replacing them with other government lawyers.

That move has fueled speculation that career DOJ lawyers refused to provide another rationale behind the citizenship question after repeatedly citing the Voting Rights Act in court or that officials feared they would no longer be viewed as trustworthy by judges presiding over the cases.

Author: Jacqueline Thomsen

Source: The Hill: Barr says Trump administration can legally add citizenship question to census

A federal judge on Friday issued a ruling blocking the Trump administration from tapping billions of dollars in military funds to construct a wall on the United States’s southern border.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam issued the permanent injunction in a California federal court, after initially ruling last month to temporarily halt the administration’s use of military funds for the border wall.

President Trump declared a national emergency earlier this year in order to divert roughly $6 billion in Defense Department funds toward border wall construction. Friday’s ruling blocks the administration from using $2.5 billion in military funds for a border wall.

The injunction halts border wall construction at different sites in New Mexico, California, Arizona and Texas, expanding Gilliam’s previous ruling.

Gilliam, an Obama appointee, made the ruling on the military funds in a lawsuit brought forward by several groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Sierra Club, challenging the diversion of the military funds under the scope of the national emergency order.

The Trump administration had argued that the use of the military funds was lawful under the scope of the national emergency, as the need for the funding was “unforeseen.” And the lawyers claimed that if they are unable to award the federal dollars to contractors by the end of the fiscal year, they may lose the funding.

In his ruling Friday, Gilliam wrote that the administration lawyers “present no new evidence or argument for why the court should depart from its prior decision, and it will not.”

“Because no new factual or legal arguments persuade the court that its analysis in the preliminary injunction order was wrong, [the groups’] likelihood of success on the merits has ripened into actual success,” the ruling reads.

The judge also found that the groups suing to block use of military funds for the wall would suffer “irreparable harm” over border wall construction because it “will harm their ability to recreate in and otherwise enjoy public land along the border.”

Gilliam wrote that while he does not “minimize” the administration’s interest in border security, he determined that “the balance of hardships and public interest favors” is in favor of the groups opposing the wall. Still, the judge declined to rule on whether the Trump administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

“Congress was clear in denying funds for Trump’s xenophobic obsession with a wasteful, harmful wall,” Dror Ladin, an attorney with the ACLU who argued for the injunction in court, said in a statement Friday. “This decision upholds the basic principle that the president has no power to spend taxpayer money without Congress’ approval.”

And Gloria Smith, the managing attorney for the Sierra Club, said in a statement that the groups “applaud the court’s decision to protect our Constitution, communities, and the environment today.”

“We’ve seen the damage that the ever-expanding border wall has inflicted on communities and the environment for decades. Walls divide neighborhoods, worsen dangerous flooding, destroy lands and wildlife, and waste resources that should instead be used on the infrastructure these communities truly need.”

Gilliam also issued a ruling in a separate case stopping the Trump administration from moving forward with border wall construction in New Mexico and California while that legal challenge plays out.

The two border states had both requested in a court filing earlier this month that the judge stop the construction, claiming it would damage the environment and infringe upon those states’ rights.

The judge on Friday partially ruled in the states’ favor, but determined that they did not reach the bar needed for him to issue a permanent injunction in that case.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) celebrated the rulings, saying that they “critically stop President Trump’s illegal money grab to divert $2.5 billion of unauthorized funding for his pet project.”

“All President Trump has succeeded in building is a constitutional crisis, threatening immediate harm to our state,” Becerra said in a statement. “President Trump said he didn’t have to do this and that he would be unsuccessful in court. Today we proved that statement true.”

Trump declared the national emergency to tap the funds for border wall construction, after a record 35 day partial government shutdown.

Congress refused to include the president’s requested amount of funds for border security in a government spending bill, a fight that resulted in the weeks-long stalemate.

The Democratic-controlled House has also sought to prevent Trump from using military funds for a border wall. They argue that only Congress has the authority to appropriate funds, and the president’s move is therefore unlawful – a legal argument echoed in both of the California lawsuits.

However, a judge in D.C. ruled that the House did not have the power to sue the administration in federal court, and later dismissed the lawsuit at the House’s request. The lawmakers are now appealing their case.

Author: Jacqueline Thomsen

Source: The Hill: Judge blocks Trump from using billions in military funds for border wall

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!