U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Greenbelt) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH

Kravitz et al v. United States Department of Commerce et al Assigned to: Judge George Jarrod Hazel Case in other court: USCA, 19-01387 Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act - Right of Review

Date Filed: 04/11/2018 Date Terminated: 06/10/2021 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 899 Other Statutes: Administrative Procedures Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff Robyn Kravitz

represented by Amee M Frodle Covington and Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth St. NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625015 Fax: 2027785015 Email: afrodle@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bianca Nunes Covington and Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625149 Fax: 2027785149 Email: bnunes@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Burth G Lopez Planned Parenthood Federation of America 1110 Vermont Ave N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 2028034051 Email: Blopez@maldef.org TERMINATED: 11/13/2019

Dustin Cho Covington and Burling LLP 850 Tenth St NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625458 Fax: 2027785458 Email: dcho@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo Covington & Burling LLP 850 10th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625474 Fax: 2027785474 Email: jarvelo@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak Covington and Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth St. NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625083 Fax: 2027785083 Email: ktilak@cov.com TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel Covington and Burling LLP 1 Front St. Fl 35 San Francisco, CA 94111 4155917028 Fax: 4159556528 Email: Lhobel@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke Covington and Burling LLP 620 Eighth Ave. New York, NY 10018 2128411072 Fax: 6464419072

Plaintiff

Email: pbduke@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy Covington and Burling LLP OneCity Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625273 Fax: 2026626291 Email: sduraiswamy@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 S. Spring St. 11th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 80014 2136292512 Fax: 2136290266 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas Covington and Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 10th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 2026625560 Fax: 2027785560 Email: tthomas@cov.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant Covington & Burling LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 12026625851 Email: dgrant@cov.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael Kravitz

represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address)

Plaintiff Catherine Nwosu

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Nnabugwu Nwosu

Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address)

Plaintiff Joanne Wilson

TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Richard McCune

represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz

Plaintiff Jose Moreno

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Diana Alexander

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo

Plaintiff Martha Sanchez

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Lauren Rachel Berman

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Yamile Labori

Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019

Plaintiff Sarah Bryan

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019

Plaintiff

Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alejandro Chavez

represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Michael Kagan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sonia Casarez Shafer

P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff Lazara Yoelvis Magadan

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019

Plaintiff

Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Linda Rivas

represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address)

Plaintiff T. Carter Ross

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Virginia Garcia

P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address)

Plaintiff Elizabeth Buchanan

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Jacob Cunningham

Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy

Plaintiff Maegan Ortiz

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Amee M Frodle (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bianca Nunes (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jose Arvelo (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karun Tilak (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/2019 PRO HAC VICE

V. Consol Plaintiff La Union Del Pueblo Entero

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lawrence A Hobel (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Benjamin Duke (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shankar Duraiswamy (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tina M Thomas (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 1016 16th St. NW #110 Washington, DC 20036 2022932828 Fax: 2022932849 Email: asenteno@maldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 1016 16th St. NW #100 Washington, DC 20036 2022932828 Fax: 2022932849 Email: dhulett@maldef.org TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola Asian Americans Advancing Justice AAJC 1620 L St. NW Ste. 1050 Washington, DC 20036 2028155091 Fax: 2022962318 Email: eandriola@advancingjusticeaajc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang Asian Americans Advancing Justice 1620 L St. NW Ste. 1050 Washinton, DC 20036 2028153786 Fax: 2022962318 Email: jyang@advancingjusticeaajc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 634 S. Spring St. 11th Fl.

Los Angeles, CA 90014 2136292512 Fax: 2136290266 Email: jgomez@maldef.org TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 110 Broadway Ste. 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 2102245476 Fax: 2102245382 Email: nperales@maldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah Asian Americans Advancing Justice 1620 L St. NW Ste. 1050 Washington, DC 20036 2028151098 Fax: 2022962308 Email: nshah@advancingjusticeaajc.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 1512 14th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 9164443031 Fax: 2022932849 Email: tpellegrini@maldef.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis Asian Americans Advancing Justice AAJC 1620 L Street NW, Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 202 815-4412

Consol Plaintiff Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus

Email: tminnis@advancingjusticeaajc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff
Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang

Consol Plaintiff
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff

Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

California Latino Legislative Caucus

represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales

Consol Plaintiff Dolores Huerta Foundation

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Mi Familia Vota Education Fund

John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Somos Un Pueblo Unido

represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff
Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff
Labor Council for Latin American Advancement

Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff Promise Arizona

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019

Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff EL Pueblo, Inc.

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus

Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff
Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago

TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff Asia Services in Action, Inc.

Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston

Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff
Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Chelsea Collaborative

Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020

Consol Plaintiff Chicanos Por La Causa

PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff
Latino Community Fund of Washington

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus

Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff Gene Wu

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett

Consol Plaintiff Juanita Valdez-Cox

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address)

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
California Legislative Black Causus

Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff
California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang

Consol Plaintiff OCA-Greater Houston

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff

Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Friendly House

represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Consol Plaintiff Four Directions, Inc.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah

Consol Plaintiff Mia Gregerson

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Raj Mukherji

Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address)

Consol Plaintiff Cindy Ryu

TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis

Consol Plaintiff Sharon Santos

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff Oliver Semans, Sr.

Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea E Senteno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Burth G Lopez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2019
Daniel Thurston Grant (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Denise Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/25/2020 PRO HAC VICE
Eri Andriola (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C Yang (See above for address)

V.
Defendant
United States Department of Commerce

PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/19/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Nina Perales (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Niyati Shah (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tanya G Pellegrini (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terry Ao Minnis (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A. Saenz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch PO Box 883 Washington, DC 20530 2025141903 Email: carol.federighi@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202-305-9803 Email: stephen.ehrlich@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett Shumate US DOJ 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 2025142331 Fax: 2025148071 Email: brett.a.shumate@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bates U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Rm. 3141 Washington, DC 20530 2025143307 Fax: 2025148071 Email: christopher.a.bates@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Reimer Us Dept Of Justice - Civil Division 175 N St. NE Washington, DC 20002 2023053829 Fax: 2025140282 Email: Christopher.r.reimer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney D Enlow U.S. Department Of Justice 1100 L Street, NW Room 12102 Washington, DC 20005 2026168467 Fax: 2026168470

Email: courtney.d.enlow@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A Schiffer U.s. Department Of Justice 175 N St. NE Washington, DC 20002 2023053819 Fax: 2025140282 Email: daniel.a.schiffer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Morrell U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Rm. 3141 Washington, DC 20530 2025142331 Fax: 2025148071 Email: david.m.morrell@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Garrett Coyle 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 2026168016 Fax: 2026168470 Email: garrett.coyle@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn Matthew Girdharry United States Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 12025324807 Fax: 12023057000 Email: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua E Gardner United States Department Of Justice 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20530 2023057583

Defendant United States Census Bureau

Fax: 2026168460 Email: Joshua.E.Gardner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Tomlinson 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 2023534556 Fax: 2026168470 Email: martin.m.tomlinson@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett Shumate (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bates (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Reimer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney D Enlow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A Schiffer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Morrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wilbur L. Ross in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce

Garrett Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn Matthew Girdharry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua E Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Tomlinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett Shumate (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bates (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Reimer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney D Enlow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A Schiffer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Morrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Garrett Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn Matthew Girdharry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua E Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Karen Dunn Kelley in her official capacity as the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce

Martin Tomlinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett Shumate (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Bates (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Reimer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Courtney D Enlow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel A Schiffer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David Morrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Garrett Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenn Matthew Girdharry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joshua E Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Ron Jarmin in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau

Martin Tomlinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brett Shumate (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Bates (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christopher Reimer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dr. Steven Dillingham Deputy Director of the Census Bureau

Courtney D Enlow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A Schiffer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Morrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Garrett Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn Matthew Girdharry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua E Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Tomlinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carol Federighi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen Ehrlich (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brett Shumate (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christopher Bates (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus State of Maryland

Christopher Reimer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Courtney D Enlow (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel A Schiffer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Morrell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dustin Cho (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Garrett Coyle (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Glenn Matthew Girdharry (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua E Gardner (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martin Tomlinson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John Robert Grimm Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP 1919 M Street NW 8th Floor Washington, DC 20036 202-796-0590 Email: jgrimm@hwglaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress
Amicus The Leadership Conference on Civil Human Rights

Julia Doyle Bernhardt Maryland Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation Division 200 Saint Paul Pl 20th Fl Baltimore, MD 21202 14105767291 Fax: 14105766955 Email: jbernhardt@oag.state.md.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tejinder Singh Goldstein and Russell PC 7475 Wisconsin Ave. Suite 850 Bethesda, md 20814 12023620636 Fax: 18665742033 Email: tsingh@goldsteinrussell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Guehenno Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich St. New York, NY 10007 2122956254 Fax: 2122308888 Email: claire.guehenno@wilmerhale.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan G Cedarbaum WilmerHale LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 12026636315 Fax: 12026636363 Email:

Amicus The Leadership Conference Education Fund
Amicus The Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U.School of Law
Amicus Muslim Advocates
Amicus National Coalition on Black Civic Participation
Amicus

Jonathan.Cedarbaum@wilmerhale.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Guehenno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan G Cedarbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Guehenno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan G Cedarbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Guehenno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan G Cedarbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Claire Guehenno (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan G Cedarbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Public Interest Legal Foundation
Amicus Federation for American Immigration Reform
Amicus American Statistical Association
Amicus American Sociological Association Amicus Population Association of America

represented by Daniel M Gray Daniel M Gray Attorney at Law 7617 Virginia Ave Falls Church, VA 22043 7032040164 Fax: 7032041449 Email: graydm2@verizon.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael Meriwether Hethmon Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave NW Ste 335 Washington, DC 20001 12022325590 Fax: 12024643590 Email: mhethmon@irli.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Tansey Hogan Lovells US LLP 100 International Drive Suite 2000 Baltimore, MD 21202 410-659-2722 Email: james.tansey@hoganlovells.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Tansey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Tansey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/11/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0416-7262770.), filed by Richard McCune, Catherine Nwosu, Jose Moreno, Michael Kravitz,

04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/11/2018 04/12/2018 04/16/2018 04/16/2018

Robyn Kravitz, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
2 NOTICE by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson re 1 Complaint, Proposed Summonses to Defendants, Attorney General, and U.S. Attorney (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
3 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Shankar Duraiswamy (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7262959.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
4 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for P. Benjamin Duke (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7262971.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
5 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Bianca Nunes (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7262985.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
6 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Tina M. Thomas (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7262990.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Karun Tilak (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7262998.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
8 Summons Issued 60 days as to Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Joanne Wilson, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
9 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 3 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Shankar Duraiswamy. Directing attorney Shankar Duraiswamy to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/16/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
10 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Benjamin Duke. Directing attorney Benjamin Duke to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-

04/16/2018 04/16/2018 04/16/2018
04/19/2018 04/20/2018
04/25/2018 05/03/2018

filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/16/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
11 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 5 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Bianca Nunes. Directing attorney Bianca Nunes to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-casefiling-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/16/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
12 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Tina Thomas. Directing attorney Tina Thomas to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-casefiling-registration. Signed by Clerk on 4/16/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
13 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Karun Tilak. Directing attorney Karun Tilak to use the attorney's existing CM/ECF login and password previously issued in this Court. The account password can be reset at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-password-reset. Signed by Clerk on 4/16/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2018)
14 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Dustin Cho (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7281005.) by Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
15 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Dustin Cho. Directing attorney Dustin Cho to use the attorney's existing CM/ECF login and password previously issued in this Court. The account password can be reset at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-password-reset. Signed by Clerk on 4/20/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/2018)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Richard McCune, Catherine Nwosu, Jose Moreno, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Service, # 2 Supplement Service)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2018)
17 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Jose Moreno, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Richard McCune, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson, Diana Alexander, Martha Sanchez, Lauren Rachel Berman, Yamile Labori, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Michael Kagan, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Virginia Garcia.

05/03/2018 05/03/2018 05/08/2018
05/25/2018 05/29/2018 05/31/2018 05/31/2018 06/06/2018
06/08/2018
06/21/2018

(Attachments: # 1 Copy of Amended Complaint identifying amendments)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Carol Federighi on behalf of All Defendants (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Stephen Ehrlich on behalf of All Defendants (Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson Service of Amended Complaint (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 05/08/2018)
21 Joint Request for Pre-Motion Conference to establish a schedule for addressing Defendants' forthcoming motion to dismiss and certain threshold discovery issues (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
22 PAPERLESS Correspondence scheduling a telephone conference call for Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 5:15 p.m. The parties are instructed to dial-in for the call: 877-810-9415; access code: 5860700. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
Telephone Status Conference held on 5/31/2018 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions Hearing set for 7/16/2018 03:00 PM in Courtroom 4A, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 5/31/2018. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 05/31/2018)
24 MOTION to Dismiss by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/06/2018)
25 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce of Filing Administrative Record Certification and Index (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Administrative Record, # 2 Administrative Record Index)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/08/2018)
26 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of

06/22/2018 06/22/2018 06/22/2018
06/25/2018 06/26/2018
06/26/2018 06/26/2018 06/26/2018

Commerce of Filing Supplement to Adminstrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
27 PAPERLESS NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing RESSCHEDULED to 6/18/2018 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4A, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
28 CORRECTED PAPERLESS NOTICE of Hearing: Motion Hearing RESCHEDULED for 7/18/2018 09:30 AM in Courtroom 4A, 6500 Cherrywood Lane, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
29 RESPONSE in Opposition re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson.(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/22/2018)
30 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by STATE OF MARYLAND (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Grimm, John) (Entered: 06/25/2018)
31 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to submit letters addressing the availability and scope of discovery beyond the administrative record by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
32 PAPERLESS Correspondence scheduling a telephone status call for June 26, 2018 at 5pm. The parties are asked to dial-in for the call. Phone number 877-810-9415; Access code 5860700. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Tejinder Singh on behalf of Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress (Singh, Tejinder) (Entered: 06/26/2018)
34 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Singh, Tejinder) (Entered: 06/26/2018)

06/27/2018 06/27/2018
06/27/2018 06/28/2018 06/28/2018
07/02/2018

35 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 31 Consent Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/27/2018. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
36 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE EDUCATION FUND, THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT N.Y.U. LAW SCHOOL, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Brief, # 2 Exhibit A (Declaration of Arturo Vargas), # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Cedarbaum, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
37 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Claire Guehenno (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7415112.) by MUSLIM ADVOCATES, NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATION, THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT N.Y.U. LAW SCHOOL, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE EDUCATION FUND, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS(Cedarbaum, Jonathan) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
38 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 37 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Claire Guehenno. Directing attorney Claire Guehenno to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electroniccase-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 6/28/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
39 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 30 Consent Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by STATE OF MARYLAND ; granting 34 Consent Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by Current Members of Congress and Bipartisan Former Members of Congress ; granting 36 Consent Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE EDUCATION FUND, THE BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT N.Y.U. LAW SCHOOL, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, NATIONAL COALITION ON BLACK CIVIC PARTICIPATI. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/28/2018. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 06/28/2018)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion re 24 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce.(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/02/2018)

07/11/2018 07/13/2018
07/13/2018 07/13/2018 07/23/2018
07/25/2018 08/21/2018

41 Joint REQUEST for Extension of Time to File letters addressing the availability and scope of discovery beyond the administrative record (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
42 STIPULATION regarding discovery by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Joint stipulation and proposed order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
43 MOTION for Discovery by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
44 Correspondence re: Review on Administrative Record (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
45 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 07/18/2018, before Judge Hazel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Renee Ewing, Telephone number 301-344-3227. Total number of pages filed: 109. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 8/13/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/23/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/22/2018.(re, Court Reporter) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
46 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce of Filing Supplemental Materials (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
47 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit N.D.Cal. Opinion, # 2 Exhibit S.D.N.Y. Opinion)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/21/2018)

08/22/2018 08/22/2018 08/29/2018 09/04/2018 09/04/2018 09/05/2018 09/05/2018 09/05/2018
09/06/2018

48 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/22/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
49 ORDER denying 24 Motion to Dismiss; granting 43 Motion for Discovery; directing the parties to supply Chambers with a proposed Scheduling Order within 7 days. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/22/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/22/2018)
50 Joint Correspondence re: Proposed Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
51 PAPERLESS Correspondence scheduling a telephone status call for Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. The parties are directed to dial-in for the call 877-810-9415; access code 5860700. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
52 Joint MOTION For Entry of FRE 502(d) Order by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed FRE 502(d) Order)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
53 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
54 PAPERLESS Correspondence RESCHEDULING the telephone status call for Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. The parties are directed to dial-in for the call 877-810-9415; access code 5860700 (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
55 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Alejandro Chavez, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Elizabeth Buchanan, Jacob Cunningham, Maegan Ortiz (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Second Amended Complaint, # 2 Copy of Proposed Second Amended Complaint Identifying Amendments)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
56 PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Motions hearing scheduled for December 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM; 8-day Bench trial scheduled for January 22, 2018. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/6/2018. (am2s, Chambers) Modified on 9/6/2018 (jf3s, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 09/06/2018)

09/07/2018 09/10/2018 09/11/2018
09/12/2018 10/10/2018 10/11/2018 10/24/2018
10/25/2018

57 CORRECTED PRET-TRIAL SCHEDULINGORDER; Motions hearing scheduled for December 14, 2018 at 10:00 AM; 8-day Bench trial scheduled for January 22, 2018. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/7/2018. (am2s, Chambers) (Entered: 09/07/2018)
58 Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) Order. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/7/2018. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
59 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Lawrence Hobel (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7554068.) by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 09/11/2018)
60 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 59 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Lawrence Hobel. Directing attorney Lawrence Hobel to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electroniccase-filing-registration. Signed by Clerk on 9/12/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
61 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce of Stay Issued by Supreme Court (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 10/10/2018)
62 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 53 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer; granting 55 Motion for Leave to File; Answer shall be due within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/11/2018. (Hazel, George) (Entered: 10/11/2018)
63 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Jose Arvelo (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7634676.) by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 10/24/2018)
64 ANSWER to Complaint (Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 551) by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce.(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 10/25/2018)

10/26/2018 11/02/2018 11/12/2018 11/26/2018
11/27/2018 11/27/2018

65 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 63 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Jose Arvelo. Directing attorney Jose Arvelo to use the attorney's existing CM/ECF login and password previously issued in this Court. The account password can be reset at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-case-filing-password-reset. Signed by Clerk on 10/26/2018. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/26/2018)
66 STATUS REPORT by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
67 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A: Declaration of John Abowd, # 3 Exhibit B: Declaration of Stuart Gurrea)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 11/12/2018)
68 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
69 RESPONSE in Opposition re 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Daniel Grant)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
70 Supplemental to 69 Response in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez,

12/04/2018
12/04/2018 12/06/2018 12/10/2018 12/16/2018 12/17/2018

Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson Exhibits and Supporting Declarations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Matthew Barreto, # 2 Declaration of Kimball Brace, # 3 Declaration of Lisa Carruth, # 4 Declaration of David Ely, # 5 Declaration of Nora Gordon, # 6 Declaration of Nancy Mathiowetz, # 7 Declaration of Roger Mingo, # 8 Declarations of Plaintiffs, # 9 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
71 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint, # 3 Copy of Proposed Third Amended Complaint Identifying Amendments)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
72 REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration)(Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 12/04/2018)
73 Joint MOTION to Consolidate Cases by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 12/06/2018)
74 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua E Gardner on behalf of All Defendants (Gardner, Joshua) (Entered: 12/10/2018)
75 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 N.D. Cal. Opinion)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 12/16/2018)
76 NOTICE of Appearance by Garrett Coyle on behalf of All Defendants (Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 12/17/2018)

12/17/2018 12/17/2018 12/18/2018 12/19/2018 12/24/2018

77 RESPONSE in Opposition re 71 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce.(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
78 STIPULATION for Leave to Conduct Trial Deposition of Expert Witness Pamela S. Karlan by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Pamela S. Karlan)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
79 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (motions hearing) held on December 14, 2018, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 126. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/8/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/18/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/18/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
80 ORDER denying (67) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (73) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH; denying (82) Motion for Summary Judgment; granting (90) Motion to Consolidate Cases in case 8:18-cv-01570-GJH; and issuing Pre-Trial schedule; the parties will be permitted to present evidence outside the administrative record at trial; the defense will be permitted to argue at the close of trial that such evidence should not be considered in the Court's final decision. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/18/2018. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
81 REPLY to Response to Motion re 71 MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson.(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 12/24/2018)

12/27/2018 12/28/2018 12/28/2018 12/28/2018 12/28/2018
01/02/2019 01/03/2019

82 MOTION to Stay Pre-Trial Deadlines, Pre-Trial Conference, and Trial in Light of Appropriations Lapse by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of CommerceAssociated Cases: 8:18cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
83 ORDER denying (82) Motion to Stay in case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH; denying (94) Motion to Stay in case 8:18-cv-01570-GJH. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/28/2018. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH and 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
84 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/28/2018. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
85 ORDER granting 71 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint ;granting 68 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH; granting ECF 84 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages in case 8:18-cv-01570-GJH; denying ECF 83 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/28/2018. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
86 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT against Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau and United States Department of Commerce, filed by Elizabeth Buchanan, Jose Moreno, Alejandro Chavez, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Diana Alexander, T. Carter Ross, Michael Kagan, Lauren Rachel Berman, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Virginia Garcia, Sarah Bryan, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Martha Sanchez, Maegan Ortiz, Richard McCune, Yamile Labori, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Jacob Cunningham, Linda Rivas and Joanne Wilson. (Attachments: # 1 Redline Third Amended Complaint)(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/28/2018)
87 Joint Request for Conference Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
Paperless Correspondence approving joint request for conference call. The Parties are instructed to confer and email chambers with a date a time that works for all parties. Court is available from 11AM-5PM on Friday January 4, 2019, and 11AM-2PM on Monday January 7, 2019. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/03/2019)

01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/04/2019
01/07/2019
01/07/2019

88 NOTICE of Appearance by Martin Tomlinson on behalf of All Defendants (Tomlinson, Martin) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
Telephone Conference held on 1/4/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
Paperless Order: As discussed on todays call, the proposals in the parties joint submission will be adopted by the court with the following additions: Proposed findings shall be submitted on February 14, Closing argument will take place at 9:30am on February 21 and there will be no opening statements given. Entered by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/4/2019. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
89 STIPULATION to Waive Requirement to File Answers by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
90 MOTION in Limine #1 Regarding Certain Exhibits by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1: Plaintiffs' Draft Exhibit List, # 3 Exhibit 2: Excerpts from Trial Transcript in State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, S.D.N.Y. No. 18-cv-2921, # 4 Exhibit 3: Excerpts from Trial Transcript in State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, S.D.N.Y. No. 18-cv-2921, # 5 Exhibit PX-202, # 6 Exhibit PX-203, # 7 Exhibit PX-204, # 8 Exhibit PX-205, # 9 Exhibit PX-206, # 10 Exhibit PX-207, # 11 Exhibit PX-208, # 12 Exhibit PX-209, # 13 Exhibit PX-210, # 14 Exhibit PX-211, # 15 Exhibit PX-212, # 16 Exhibit PX-213, # 17 Exhibit PX-214, # 18 Exhibit PX-216, # 19 Exhibit PX-217, # 20 Exhibit PX-218, # 21 Exhibit PX-219, # 22 Exhibit PX-254, # 23 Exhibit PX-269, # 24 Exhibit PX-287, # 25 Exhibit PX-288, # 26 Exhibit PX-298, # 27 Exhibit PX-466, # 28 Exhibit PX-482, # 29 Exhibit PX-483, # 30 Exhibit PX-484, # 31 Exhibit PX-486, # 32 Exhibit PX-487, # 33 Exhibit PX-488, # 34 Exhibit PX-495, # 35 Exhibit PX-496, # 36 Exhibit PX-497, # 37 Exhibit PX-498, # 38 Exhibit PX-499, # 39 Exhibit PX-500, # 40 Exhibit PX-501, # 41 Exhibit PX-505, # 42 Exhibit PX-506, # 43 Exhibit PX-508, # 44 Exhibit PX-510, # 45 Exhibit PX-512, # 46 Exhibit PX-517, # 47 Exhibit PX-519, # 48 Exhibit PX-525, # 49 Exhibit PX-526, # 50 Exhibit PX-527, # 51 Exhibit PX-528, # 52 Exhibit PX-539, # 53 Exhibit PX-540,

01/07/2019

# 54 Exhibit PX-623, # 55 Exhibit PX-624, # 56 Exhibit PX-625, # 57 Exhibit PX-626, # 58 Exhibit PX-627, # 59 Exhibit PX-628, # 60 Exhibit PX-629, # 61 Exhibit PX-630, # 62 Exhibit PX-631, # 63 Exhibit PX-632, # 64 Exhibit PX-633, # 65 Exhibit PX-634, # 66 Exhibit PX-635, # 67 Exhibit PX-636, # 68 Exhibit PX-637, # 69 Exhibit PX-638, # 70 Exhibit PX-639, # 71 Exhibit PX-640, # 72 Exhibit PX-641, # 73 Exhibit PX-642, # 74 Exhibit PX-643, # 75 Exhibit PX-644, # 76 Exhibit PX-645, # 77 Exhibit PX-646, # 78 Exhibit PX-648, # 79 Exhibit PX-649, # 80 Exhibit PX-650, # 81 Exhibit PX-657, # 82 Exhibit PX-685, # 83 Exhibit PX-687, # 84 Exhibit PX-702, # 85 Exhibit PX-706, # 86 Exhibit PX-707, # 87 Exhibit PX-708, # 88 Exhibit PX-709, # 89 Exhibit PX-710, # 90 Exhibit PX-711, # 91 Exhibit PX-717, # 92 Exhibit PX-743, # 93 Exhibit PX-744, # 94 Exhibit PX-745, # 95 Exhibit PX-746, # 96 Exhibit PX-747, # 97 Exhibit PX-748, # 98 Exhibit PX-756, # 99 Exhibit PX-772, # 100 Exhibit PX-773, # 101 Exhibit PX-793, # 102 Exhibit PX-794, # 103 Exhibit PX-820, # 104 Exhibit PX-821, # 105 Exhibit PX-824, # 106 Exhibit PX-825, # 107 Exhibit PX-848, # 108 Exhibit PX-849, # 109 Exhibit PX-862, # 110 Exhibit PX-868, # 111 Exhibit PX-939, # 112 Exhibit PX-940, # 113 Exhibit PX-942, # 114 Exhibit PX-947, # 115 Exhibit PX-950, # 116 Exhibit PX-993, # 117 Exhibit PX-994, # 118 Exhibit PX-995, # 119 Exhibit PX-1034, # 120 Exhibit PX-1050, # 121 Exhibit PX-1054, # 122 Exhibit PX-1055, # 123 Exhibit PX-1056, # 124 Exhibit PX-1057, # 125 Exhibit PX-1058, # 126 Exhibit PX-1100, # 127 Exhibit PX-1101, # 128 Exhibit PX-1136, # 129 Exhibit PX-1137, # 130 Exhibit PX-1138, # 131 Exhibit PX-1140, # 132 Exhibit PX-1141, # 133 Exhibit PX-1142, # 134 Exhibit PX-1143, # 135 Exhibit PX-1144, # 136 Exhibit PX-1145, # 137 Exhibit PX-1146, # 138 Exhibit PX-1147, # 139 Exhibit PX-1148, # 140 Exhibit PX-1151, # 141 Exhibit PX-1153, # 142 Exhibit PX-1154, # 143 Exhibit PX-1155, # 144 Exhibit PX-1157, # 145 Exhibit PX-1158, # 146 Exhibit PX-1160, # 147 Exhibit PX-1161, # 148 Exhibit PX-1164, # 149 Exhibit PX-1167, # 150 Exhibit PX-1168, # 151 Exhibit PX-1169, # 152 Exhibit PX-1170, # 153 Exhibit PX-1171, # 154 Exhibit PX-1172, # 155 Exhibit PX-1173, # 156 Exhibit PX-1174, # 157 Exhibit PX-1176, # 158 Exhibit PX1178)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
91 MOTION in Limine #2 to Exclude Certain Testimony From Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses William O'Hare and Nancy Mathiowetz by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit Abowd Report, # 3 Exhibit O'Hare Report, # 4 Exhibit O'Hare Rebuttal Report, # 5 Exhibit Mathiowetz Report, # 6 Exhibit Excerpts from Trial

01/07/2019 01/07/2019
01/11/2019

Transcript in State of New York v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, S.D.N.Y. No. 18-cv-2921)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
92 MOTION in Limine #3 to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses Pamela Karlan and David Ely by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1: Gary Letter, # 3 Exhibit 2: Decision Memo, # 4 Exhibit 3: Pamela S. Karlan Deposition Transcript, # 5 Exhibit 4: Ely Report)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18cv-01570-GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
93 MOTION in Limine to preclude Defendants from using the deliberative process as both a sword and a shield by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
94 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T.

01/11/2019

Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu Notice of Filing of Trial Affidavits (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Affidavit, # 4 Affidavit, # 5 Affidavit, # 6 Affidavit, # 7 Affidavit, # 8 Affidavit, # 9 Affidavit, # 10 Affidavit, # 11 Affidavit, # 12 Affidavit, # 13 Affidavit, # 14 Affidavit, # 15 Affidavit, # 16 Affidavit, # 17 Affidavit, # 18 Affidavit, # 19 Affidavit, # 20 Affidavit, # 21 Affidavit, # 22 Affidavit, # 23 Affidavit, # 24 Affidavit, # 25 Affidavit, # 26 Affidavit)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
95 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas

01/11/2019 01/14/2019
01/14/2019 01/14/2019

House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu Notice of Filing of Testimony of Christine Pierce (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
96 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel Thurston Grant Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
97 RESPONSE in Opposition re (104 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH) MOTION in Limine to preclude Defendants from using the deliberative process as both a sword and a shield filed by Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Transcript of Pretrial Conference in SDNY No. 18-2921)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Tomlinson, Martin) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
98 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce of Waiver of Cross-Examination of Certain Fact Witnesses Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
99 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas

01/14/2019 01/14/2019

House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu Notice of Filing of Trial Declarations (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Kimball Brace, # 2 Declaration of Lisa Carruth, # 3 Declaration of David Ely, # 4 Declaration of Nora Gordon, Ph.D, # 5 Declaration of Terri Ann Lowenthal, # 6 Declaration of Dr. Douglas S. Massey, # 7 Declaration of Roger Mingo, # 8 Declaration of Andrew Reamer, Ph.D)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
100 RESPONSE to Motion re (91 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 102 in 8:18-cv01570-GJH) MOTION in Limine #2 to Exclude Certain Testimony From Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses William O'Hare and Nancy Mathiowetz filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Muslim Advocates, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
101 RESPONSE to Motion re (103 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 92 in 8:18-cv01041-GJH) MOTION in Limine #3 to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses Pamela Karlan and David Ely filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha

01/14/2019

Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu.Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
102 RESPONSE to Motion re (90 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 101 in 8:18-cv01570-GJH) MOTION in Limine #1 Regarding Certain Exhibits filed by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit,

01/14/2019
01/16/2019 01/17/2019

# 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
103 Proposed Pretrial Order submitted by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu. (Attachments: # 1 Joint Stipulations of Fact, # 2 Plaintiffs' Exhibit List, # 3 Defendants' Exhibit List, # 4 Deposition Designations for Deposition of Ron Jarmin, # 5 Deposition Designations for Deposition of Wendy Teramoto, # 6 Deposition Designations for Deposition of Karen Dunn Kelley, # 7 Deposition Designations for Deposition of John Abowd Part I, # 8 Deposition Designations for Deposition of Earl Comstock, # 9 Deposition Designations for Deposition of John Abowd Part II, # 10 Deposition Designations for Deposition of John Gore, # 11 Deposition Designations for Deposition of Sahra Park-Su, # 12 Deposition Designations for Deposition of David Langdon)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
104 LETTER ORDER regarding 1/18/2019 pretrial conference and the effect of Judge Furman's 1/15/2019 ruling in State of New York et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce No. 18-cv-02921-JMF on the Court's jurisdiction here. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/16/2019. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
105 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Amee Frodle (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7789006.) by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel

01/17/2019 01/17/2019 01/17/2019 01/17/2019
01/17/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019

Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
106 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 105 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Amee Frodle. Directing attorney Amee Frodle to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-casefiling-registration. Signed by Clerk on 1/17/2019. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
107 NOTICE of Appearance by Courtney D Enlow on behalf of All Defendants (Enlow, Courtney) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
PAPERLESS CORRESPONDENCE, The Pre-Trial Conference scheduled for 1/18/2019 and the upcoming Bench Trial will take place in courtroom 4C. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(jw2s, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 1/18/2019 (kns, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 01/17/2019)
108 NOTICE by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce re (94 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 106 in 8:18-cv01570-GJH) Notice (Other),,,,,,,, (112 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 99 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH) Notice (Other),,,,,,, (107 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 95 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH) Notice (Other),,,,,, of Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiffs' Trial Declarations (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Kravitz Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures, # 2 Exhibit 2: LUPE Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures, # 3 Exhibit 3: LUPE Plaintiffs' Supplemental Disclosures)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
109 Correspondence re: Letter Order, Dkt. 104 (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
110 NOTICE of Appearance by Brett Shumate on behalf of All Defendants Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Shumate, Brett) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
111 LETTER ORDER granting in part and denying in part 90 Defendants' Motion in Limine #1; denying 91 Defendants' Motion in Limine #2; denying 92 Defendants' Motion in Limine #3; reserving judgment on Defendants' Motion in Limine #4, ECF No. 105 (18-1570) and denying 93 Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/18/2019. (kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/18/2019)

01/18/2019 01/18/2019

112 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Thomas A. Saenz (Filing fee $100, receipt number 0416-7793688.) by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu(Lopez, Burth) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
113 Motion Hearing held on 1/18/2019 re (103 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 92 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH) MOTION in Limine #3 to Exclude Testimony from Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses Pamela Karlan and David Ely filed by Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, (91 in 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 102 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH) MOTION in Limine #2 to Exclude Certain Testimony From Plaintiffs' Expert Witnesses William O'Hare and Nancy Mathiowetz filed by Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, Enrique Lamas, Karen Dunn Kelley, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, (104 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 93 in 8:18cv-01041-GJH) MOTION in Limine to preclude Defendants from using the deliberative process as both a sword and a shield filed by Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Promise Arizona, Michael Kagan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, Diana Alexander, Jacob Cunningham, OCA-Greater Houston, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Yamile Labori, Friendly House, Raj Mukherji, EL Pueblo, Inc., Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, T. Carter Ross, Chicanos Por La Causa, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Asian Americans

01/18/2019 01/18/2019

Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Legislative Black Causus, Cindy Ryu, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Jose Moreno, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Martha Sanchez, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Elizabeth Buchanan, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Oliver Semans, Sr., Four Directions, Inc., Virginia Garcia, Gene Wu, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Sharon Santos, Sarah Bryan, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Lauren Rachel Berman, California Latino Legislative Caucus, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Linda Rivas, Alejandro Chavez, Richard McCune, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Joanne Wilson, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Chelsea Collaborative, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Mia Gregerson, Robyn Kravitz, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Maegan Ortiz, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, (90 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 101 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH) MOTION in Limine #1 Regarding Certain Exhibits filed by Ron Jarmin, Enrique Lamas, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Cindy Davis) Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
114 MOTION in Limine # 4 to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Witness Andrew Reamer by Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A - Portion of Dr. Reamer's Expert Report, # 3 Exhibit B - Relevant Portion of Dr. Reamer's Deposition Transcript)(kns, Deputy Clerk)(originally filed as ECF #105 in GJH 18-cv-1570 on 1/7/2019) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
115 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu,

01/18/2019 01/21/2019

OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu Notice of Plaintiffs' Planned Witness Order for the First Week of Trial (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
116 Proposed Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Updated Exhibit List by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu.. (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
117 NOTICE by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos

01/21/2019
01/22/2019 01/23/2019

Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu Amended Trial Declaration (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Plaintiff Trial Declaration)(Lopez, Burth) (Entered: 01/21/2019)
118 Proposed Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Updated Exhibit List by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese AmericansGreater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu.. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/21/2019)
119 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 112 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Thomas Saenz. Directing attorney Thomas Saenz to register online for CM/ECF at http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/electronic-casefiling-registration. Signed by Clerk on 1/22/2019. (srd, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
120 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Preconference Hearing) held on January 18, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 3443228. Total number of pages filed: 125. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/13/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/23/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) Modified on 1/23/2019 (cd, Court Reporter). (Entered: 01/23/2019)

01/23/2019 01/23/2019 01/23/2019
01/24/2019 01/25/2019

121 Bench Trial held on 1/22/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Davis/Ewing 4C) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
122 Bench Trial Day 2 held on 1/23/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Davis/ Ewing 4C) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
123 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/23/2019)
124 Bench Trial Day 3 held on 1/24/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Ewing/ Davis 4C) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
125 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 1 of Bench Trial) held on January 22, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 233. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/25/2019)

01/25/2019
01/25/2019
01/25/2019 01/25/2019 01/25/2019

126 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 2 of Bench Trial) held on January 23, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 251. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
127 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 3 of Bench Trial) held on January 24, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 150. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/25/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
128 LETTER ORDER regarding Defendants' Outstanding Evidentiary Objections. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/25/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
129 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing Amended Trial Declarations (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Amended Trial Declarations)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
130 STIPULATION Admitting Trial Exhibits by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American

01/28/2019 01/28/2019

Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
131 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu Notice of Filing of Parties' Responses to Objections to Deposition Designations (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Responses to Defendants' Objections, # 2 Defendants' Responses to Plaintiffs' Objections)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
132 Proposed Exhibit List Plaintiffs' Notice of Updated Exhibit List and List of Exhibits Plaintiffs Intend to Move Into Evidence by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por

01/29/2019

La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu.. (Attachments: # 1 Updated Exhibit List)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/28/2019)
133 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu Plaintiffs Notice of Filing of Amended Trial Affidavits (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Peter Bloch Garcia, # 2 Affidavit Gerardo Gonzalez, # 3 Affidavit Angelica Salas, # 4 Affidavit Tony Navarrette, # 5 Affidavit Elaine Tso, # 6 Affidavit Raj Mukherji)(Lopez, Burth) (Entered: 01/29/2019)

01/29/2019 01/30/2019
01/30/2019 01/31/2019 01/31/2019

135 Bench Trial Day 4 held on 1/29/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Ewing/ Davis 4C) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
134 STIPULATION Admitting Trial Exhibits Included in the Administrative Record by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
136 Bench Trial Day 5 held on 1/30/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Ewing/Davis 4C) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
137 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 4 of Bench Trial) held on January 29, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 153. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/21/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
138 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 5 of Bench Trial) held on January 30, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 203. Transcript may be viewed

01/31/2019
01/31/2019 02/05/2019 02/11/2019 02/12/2019 02/12/2019 02/12/2019 02/13/2019
02/13/2019

at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/21/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
139 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Volume 6 of Bench Trial) held on January 31, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 132. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/21/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/4/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 01/31/2019)
140 Bench Trial Day 6 held on 1/31/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Ewing/Davis 4c) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
141 LETTER ORDER regarding outstanding evidentiary objections, including objections to deposition designations. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/5/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/05/2019)
142 Substantive legal issues - addressing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment, # 2 Attachment)(Lopez, Burth) (Entered: 02/11/2019)
143 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Doyle Bernhardt on behalf of State of Maryland (Bernhardt, Julia) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
144 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney John R. Grimm by State of Maryland (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bernhardt, Julia) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
145 TRIAL BRIEF in Response to Plaintiffs' Letter by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. (Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
146 Consent MOTION for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs by American Statistical Association, American Sociological Association, Population Association of America (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Amicus Brief, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Tansey, James) (Entered: 02/13/2019)
147 ORDER addressing evidentiary issues. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/13/2019. (Hazel, George) (Entered: 02/13/2019)

02/14/2019 02/14/2019

148 Proposed Findings of Fact by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu. (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
149 TRIAL BRIEF Plaintiffs' Proposed Conclusions of Law by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American

02/15/2019 02/18/2019
02/21/2019 02/27/2019

Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu. (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
150 Proposed Findings of Fact by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Enrique Lamas, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. (Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
151 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu re 148 Proposed Findings of Fact,,,,, 149 Trial Brief,,,,, Plaintiffs' Notice of Filing of Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact, # 2 Plaintiffs' Corrected Conclusions of Law, # 3 Redline of Plaintiffs' Corrected Proposed Findings of Fact Showing Corrections, # 4 Redline of Plaintiffs' Corrected Conclusions of Law Showing Corrections)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 02/18/2019)
152 Bench Trial Day 7 completed on 2/21/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel.(Court Reporter: Cindy Davis 4A) (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
153 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Closing Arguments/Volume 7 of trial) held on February 21, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 247. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through

04/05/2019 04/05/2019
04/08/2019 04/11/2019 04/12/2019 04/18/2019 04/22/2019

PACER. Redaction Request due 3/20/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/1/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/28/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 02/27/2019)
154 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/5/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
155 ORDER directing the Clerk to edit the docket; denying 114 Motion in Limine #4 to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs' Expert Witness; granting 146 Consent Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief; FINAL JUDGMENT entered in favor of Plaintiffs on Plaintiffs' claims arising under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution's Enumeration Clause; FINAL JUDGMENT entered in favor of the Defendants on Plaintiffs' claims arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; FINAL JUDGMENT entered in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs on the LUPE Plaintiffs' 42:1985(3) Claim; directing the Clerk to close this case and member case Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-01570-GJH. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/5/2019. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
156 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 155 Judgment,,, 154 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. (Coyle, Garrett) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
157 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 156 Notice of Appeal. IMPORTANT NOTICE: To access forms which you are required to file with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit please go to http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov and click on Forms & Notices.(krcs, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
158 USCA Case Number 19-1387 for 156 Notice of Appeal filed by Karen Dunn Kelley, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, Steven Dillingham. Case Manager - Jennifer Rice (sp2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/17/2019)
159 Order Entering Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time for Kravitz and Lupe Plaintiffs to File Bill of Costs and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/18/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/18/2019)
160 NOTICE of Change of Address by Daniel Thurston Grant (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

06/03/2019 06/03/2019

161 MOTION to Set Aside Judgment and Request Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing JusticeChicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Promise Arizona, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
162 Corrected MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment and Request Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected

06/03/2019

Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Promise Arizona, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
163 MOTION to Shorten Time on Plaintiffs' Rule 62.1(a) Motion for an Indicative Ruling by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos,

06/04/2019 06/04/2019 06/10/2019
06/14/2019

Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Promise Arizona, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
164 RESPONSE in Opposition re 163 MOTION to Shorten Time on Plaintiffs' Rule 62.1(a) Motion for an Indicative Ruling filed by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce.(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
165 ORDER that defendants may file and serve their opposition no later that June10, 2019; plaintiffs may file and serve their reply, if any no later thatn June 14, 2019. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/4/2019. (heps, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
166 RESPONSE in Opposition re 162 Corrected MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment and Request Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) filed by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Gary Letter, # 2 Exhibit B: Defs.' Oct. 23, 2018 Email Attaching Neuman Letter, # 3 Exhibit C: Gore Dep. Excerpts, # 4 Exhibit D: Neuman Dep. Excerpts, # 5 Exhibit E: Evenwel Comparison, # 6 Exhibit F: Plaintiff-Appellants' Br. in Supp. of Cross Appeal, # 7 Exhibit G: Gov't Resp. to Mot. for Sanctions (S.D.N.Y.), # 8 Exhibit H: DOJ Ltr. to Rep. Cummings)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
167 REPLY to Response to Motion re (162 in 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 137 in 8:18-cv-01570-GJH) Corrected MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment and Request Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) filed by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham,

06/17/2019

Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Promise Arizona, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jon Gregory Matthews, # 2 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-1, # 3 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-2, # 4 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A3, # 5 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-4, # 6 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-5, # 7 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-6, # 8 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-7, # 9 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-8, # 10 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-9, # 11 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-10, # 12 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-11, # 13 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-12, # 14 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-13, # 15 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-14, # 16 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-15, # 17 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-16, # 18 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-17, # 19 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-18, # 20 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-19, # 21 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-20, # 22 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-21, # 23 Exhibit Matthews Decl. Ex. A-22, # 24 Declaration of Shankar Duraiswamy, # 25 Exhibit Duraiswamy Decl. Ex. 1, # 26 Exhibit Duraiswamy Decl. Ex. 2, # 27 Exhibit Duraiswamy Decl. Ex. 3, # 28 Exhibit Duraiswamy Decl. Ex. 4)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
168 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Surreply)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/17/2019)

06/18/2019
06/18/2019 06/18/2019 06/18/2019 06/19/2019 06/19/2019

169 Motion Hearing held on 6/18/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel re 162 Corrected MOTION to Alter/Amend Judgment and Request Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(A) filed by Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Promise Arizona, Michael Kagan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, Diana Alexander, Jacob Cunningham, OCA-Greater Houston, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Yamile Labori, Friendly House, Raj Mukherji, EL Pueblo, Inc., Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, T. Carter Ross, Chicanos Por La Causa, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Asian Americans Advancing JusticeChicago, California Legislative Black Causus, Cindy Ryu, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Jose Moreno, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Martha Sanchez, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Elizabeth Buchanan, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Oliver Semans, Sr., Four Directions, Inc., Virginia Garcia, Gene Wu, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Sharon Santos, Sarah Bryan, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Lauren Rachel Berman, California Latino Legislative Caucus, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Linda Rivas, Alejandro Chavez, Richard McCune, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Joanne Wilson, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Chelsea Collaborative, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Mia Gregerson, Robyn Kravitz, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Maegan Ortiz, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus. (Court Reporter: Cindy Davis/4A) (ds2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
ORAL ORDER granting 168 Motion for Leave to File Surreply signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/18/2019. (ds2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
170 DEFENDANTS' EXHIBIT LIST. (ds2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
171 Stipulation regarding Return of Exhibits to Counsel. (ds2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
172 NOTICE by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce of Filing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
173 RESPONSE re 172 Notice (Other) filed by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative

06/19/2019 06/24/2019 06/24/2019
06/25/2019 06/26/2019

Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu.(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
174 ORDER granting 162 Request for Indicative Ruling Under Rule 62.1(a); pursuant to Rule 62.1(b) the Plaintiff shall promptly notify the Circuit Court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 12. of the Court's decision. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/19/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2019)
175 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/24/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
176 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (Motions Hearing) held on June 18, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 118. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/15/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/25/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/23/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
177 ORDER of USCA granting the motion to remand case for a limited purpose as to as to 156 Notice of Appeal filed by Karen Dunn Kelley, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, Steven Dillingham (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
178 Emergency MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian

06/26/2019

Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
179 MOTION to Expedite Briefing Schedule on Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Injunction Pending Appeal by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox,

06/27/2019 06/27/2019 06/28/2019 06/28/2019 07/03/2019 07/03/2019
07/05/2019

Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 06/26/2019)
180 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 179 Motion to Expedite. If Defendants wish to file a written opposition to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Injunction Pending Appeal, they shall file and serve that opposition by June 27, 2019 at 8:00 PM. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/27/2019.(MHM) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
181 RETURN DOCUMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/26/2019. (Attachment: # 1 First Page of Returned Document) (Order originally filed on 6/26/2019) (c/m 6/27/2019 tds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/27/2019)
182 NOTICE by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce of North Carolina Filing (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Ehrlich, Stephen) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
183 RETURN DOCUMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 6/28/2019. (Attachment: # 1 First Page of Returned Document) (c/m 7/1/2019 tds, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
184 Telephone Conference held on 7/3/2019 before Judge George Jarrod Hazel. (jw2s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
185 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings (TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE) held on July 3, 2019, before Judge George J. Hazel. Court Reporter Cindy Davis, Telephone number (301) 344-3228. Total number of pages filed: 14. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained from the Court Reporter or through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/24/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/5/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2019.(cd, Court Reporter) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
186 NOTICE by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile

07/05/2019 07/05/2019 07/05/2019 07/08/2019 07/08/2019
07/08/2019
07/09/2019

Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
187 STATUS REPORT Defendants Proposed Discovery Plan by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce(Tomlinson, Martin) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
188 LETTER ORDER regarding commencement of discovery. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/5/2019. (kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
189 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/5/2019. (kns, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/05/2019)
190 NOTICE of Appearance by Glenn Matthew Girdharry on behalf of All Defendants (Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
191 MOTION for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order granting Defendants' motion for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel)(Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
192 Amended MOTION for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order granting Defendants' amended motion for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel)(Girdharry, Glenn) (Entered: 07/08/2019)
193 RESPONSE to Motion re 192 Amended MOTION for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel filed by Diana Alexander, Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative

07/10/2019
07/10/2019 07/11/2019
07/11/2019 07/11/2019 07/11/2019

Black Causus, Alejandro Chavez, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Jacob Cunningham, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Virginia Garcia, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Yamile Labori, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Richard McCune, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Jose Moreno, Raj Mukherji, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Maegan Ortiz, Promise Arizona, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Cindy Ryu, Martha Sanchez, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Joanne Wilson, Gene Wu.(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/09/2019)
194 REPLY to Response to Motion re 192 Amended MOTION for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel , 191 MOTION for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel filed by Steven Dillingham, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce.(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
195 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Denying without prejudice 192 Amended Motion for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/10/2019. (heps, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/10/2019)
196 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel A Schiffer on behalf of Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Schiffer, Daniel) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
197 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Reimer on behalf of All Defendants Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Reimer, Christopher) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
198 NOTICE of Appearance by David Morrell on behalf of All Defendants (Morrell, David) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
199 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher Bates on behalf of All Defendants (Bates, Christopher) (Entered: 07/11/2019)

07/11/2019 07/12/2019 07/16/2019 07/16/2019
08/15/2019
08/15/2019

200 NOTICE by Steven Dillingham, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Executive Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Reimer, Christopher) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
201 Joint Request for Conference Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Reimer, Christopher) (Entered: 07/12/2019)
202 Joint Correspondence re: (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 07/16/2019)
203 ORDER that Defendants, including the Secretary of Commerce in his Official Capacity, the Director of the Census in his official capacity are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED form including a citizenship question of the 2020 decennial census questionnaire; The Court will retain jurisdiction in this case to adjudicate any motion for fees and costs and to enforce the terms of this Order. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/16/2019. (heps, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
204 MOTION for Leave to File a Skeletal Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
205 MOTION for Leave to File Skeletal Filing of Motion for Attorneys' Fees by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate

08/15/2019
08/15/2019 08/15/2019

Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570GJH(Minnis, Terry) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
206 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese Americans-Greater Houston, Promise Arizona, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu(Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
207 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration of Shankar Duraiswamy, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
208 ORDER granting 204 Motion for Leave to File Skeletal Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/15/2019. (dg3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2019)

08/15/2019 08/19/2019 08/19/2019 08/23/2019
08/28/2019
08/28/2019

209 ORDER granting 205 Motion for Leave to File Skeletal Filing of Motion for Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/15/2019. (dg3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/16/2019)
210 ORDER of USCA granting the motion and remands this case to the USDC with instructions to vacate paragraph 6 of the district court order dated 4/5/19 in Kravitz et al v. United States Department of Commerce, et al, as to 156 Notice of Appeal filed by Karen Dunn Kelley, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, Steven Dillingham (krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
211 JUDGMENT of USCA remanding to the USDC for further proceedings as to 156 Notice of Appeal filed by Karen Dunn Kelley, Ron Jarmin, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, Steven Dillingham (Attachment: # 1 Notice of Judgment)(krc, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
212 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Karun Tilak, Bianca Nunes, and Amee Frodle by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
213 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
214 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund,

08/28/2019 08/30/2019 09/11/2019
09/12/2019 09/30/2019
09/30/2019 10/04/2019

Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCAGreater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 08/28/2019)
215 ORDER Granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 8/28/2019. (heps, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 08/29/2019)
216 ORDER granting 214 Joint Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/30/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/02/2019)
217 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 09/11/2019)
218 ORDER granting 217 Second Joint Motion to Extend Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 9/11/2019. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
219 NOTICE of Settlement by Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Elizabeth Buchanan, Alejandro Chavez, Jacob Cunningham, Virginia Garcia, Michael Kagan, Michael Kravitz, Robyn Kravitz, Yamile Labori, Lazara Yoelvis Magadan, Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Maegan Ortiz, Linda Rivas, T. Carter Ross, Martha Sanchez, Sonia Casarez Shafer, Joanne Wilson (Grant, Daniel) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
220 NOTICE of Settlement re: Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Costs in No. 18-1570 by Ron Jarmin, Karen Dunn Kelley, Wilbur L. Ross, United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce (Federighi, Carol) (Entered: 09/30/2019)
221 ORDER Denying as moot 206 in light of settlement; Denying as moot 207 in light of settlement granting 212 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Karun Tilak terminated. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 10/4/2019. (jw2s, Chambers) (Entered: 10/04/2019)

11/13/2019 01/24/2020 02/25/2020
03/25/2020 03/25/2020 05/08/2020

222 ORDER in case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH; granting (148) Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Burth G Lopez terminated in case 8:18cv-01570-GJH. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 11/13/2019. Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01570-GJH, 8:18-cv-01041-GJH(dg3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/13/2019)
223 ORDER vacating paragraph 6 of 155 ORDER. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 1/24/2020. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/24/2020)
224 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese AmericansGreater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Minnis, Terry) (Entered: 02/25/2020)
225 PAPERLESS ORDER DENYING as moot 178 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/25/2020. (jw2s, Chambers) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
226 PAPERLESS ORDER Denying as moot 191 Motion for leave to withdraw appearance of counsel ; granting 224 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Denise Hulett terminated. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/25/2020. (jw2s, Chambers) (Entered: 03/25/2020)
227 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Arizona Latino Legislative Caucus, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus, California Latino Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Causus, Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos Por La Causa, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, EL Pueblo, Inc., Four Directions, Inc., Friendly House, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Mia Gregerson, La Union Del Pueblo Entero, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Latino Community Fund of

02/19/2021

Washington, Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Minkwon Center for Community Action, Inc, Raj Mukherji, OCA-Greater Houston, Organization of Chinese AmericansGreater Houston, Promise Arizona, Cindy Ryu, Sharon Santos, Oliver Semans, Sr, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Juanita Valdez-Cox, Gene Wu (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)Associated Cases: 8:18-cv-01041-GJH, 8:18-cv-01570-GJH(Minnis, Terry) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
229 ORDER granting 227 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Julia A Gomez terminated. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/10/2021. (jf3s, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

07/12/2021 13:27:53

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

30

Cost:

Duffield
8:18-cv01041-GJH
3.00

 
 Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 1 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBYN KRAVITZ, 3606 Stewart Road District Heights Prince George’s County, MD 20747;
MICHAEL KRAVITZ, 3606 Stewart Road District Heights Prince George’s County, MD 20747;
CATHERINE NWOSU, 8004 18th Avenue Hyattsville Prince George’s County, MD 20783;
NNABUGWU NWOSU, 8004 18th Avenue Hyattsville Prince George’s County, MD 20783;
JOANNE WILSON, 3806 Viser Court Bowie Prince George’s County, MD 20715;
RICHARD McCUNE, 455 West Crawford Street Nogales, AZ 85621;
JOSE MORENO, 443 East Ramona Street Box 3293 Somerton, AZ 85350;
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Case No. ____________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 2 of 42
1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
KAREN DUNN KELLEY in her official capacity as the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
RON JARMIN in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
ENRIQUE LAMAS in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
Defendants.
2

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 3 of 42
INTRODUCTION 1. On March 26, 2018, in an abrupt reversal of 60 years of policy and practice, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., ordered the U.S. Census Bureau (the “Bureau” or “Census Bureau”) to add a question to the 2020 decennial census (“2020 Census”) questionnaire that requires respondents to report to the government whether they and their household members are United States citizens. Coming amidst what the Bureau itself has identified as a widespread climate of fear among citizen and noncitizen immigrants, the belated addition of a citizenship question will significantly depress response rates in certain communities, thereby undermining the completeness and accuracy of the 2020 Census. The Secretary insisted on the addition of a citizenship question despite expressly conceding that it could lead to a disproportionate undercount and without having conducted a single test, in almost seven years of pre-Census preparation, to assess the impact that a citizenship question would have on the accuracy of the census count. 2. The Secretary’s action violates the paramount constitutional objective of the decennial census—to count every person residing in the United States, citizen and noncitizen alike. It also contravenes binding legal requirements and the Bureau’s own policies and procedures for ensuring an accurate and complete census count. Defendants’ action not only violates the Census Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, but also must be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise in contravention of applicable law. 3. Plaintiffs—individual citizens residing in Prince George’s County, Maryland and the State of Arizona—bring this action under the Constitution and the APA to block this unlawful assault on the integrity of the decennial census and to prevent the harm that
3

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 4 of 42
each of the Plaintiffs will suffer if this final agency action taken by the U.S. Department of Commerce (the “Commerce Department” or “Department”) is permitted to stand.
4. The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a decennial census counting the total number of “persons”—regardless of citizenship status— residing in each state. The population data collected through this decennial census determines the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. States also use these data to draw congressional and state legislative districts. And over $675 billion in federal funding for a wide array of programs is allocated to individual states and localities every year based upon decennial census data.
5. From 1960 until March 26, 2018, the Bureau had steadfastly determined, in census after census, not to ask about citizenship status on the standard census questionnaire used to count all persons in the United States. Bureau personnel have repeatedly found that such a question was unnecessary to count total population and would undermine the accuracy and completeness of the census by causing disproportionate levels of non-participation among certain demographic groups.
6. As a federal statistical agency within the Commerce Department, the Census Bureau is held to stringent regulations on impartiality, objectivity, and statistical reliability, requiring decisions about census content and collection methodologies to be insulated from political considerations and based on rigorous pre-testing. The Census Bureau is nearly seven years into the preparation process for the 2020 Census and has already completed numerous tests to inform the final content, design, and operation of the 2020 Census.
7. None of the testing for the 2020 Census to date has evaluated the impact of a citizenship question on response rates to the 2020 Census questionnaire, or on the accuracy
4

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 5 of 42
and completeness of 2020 Census data. The final pre-census test, a “dress rehearsal” that is the culmination of the Bureau’s research and testing efforts, is now underway and will not assess the impact of a citizenship question.
8. The Secretary’s last-minute decision to add a citizenship question—which reportedly overruled both top Bureau officials and the Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee—was purportedly made to satisfy a belated December 2017 request from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which claimed that it needed “census block”-level citizenship data to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”). The DOJ’s claim, however, had no valid foundation. In over half a century of the VRA’s existence, census block-level citizenship data have never been available to or used by the government to enforce Section 2, nor have Congress or the courts required such data.
9. In reality, the VRA rationale is a mere pretext. The circumstances of the Secretary’s decision show that the addition of an untested citizenship question is a partisan act aimed at advancing the Trump Administration’s anti-immigration political agenda, heedless of legal requirements. Even before the Secretary announced his decision, President Trump’s reelection campaign sent a mass email declaring that the President “wants the 2020 United States Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens” and asking “if you’re on his side.” Within two days of the Secretary’s decision, the Trump campaign sent out another mass e-mail asserting that President Trump had personally “mandated” the decision and soliciting political support on that basis.
10. As the Bureau’s own prior research and investigation demonstrate, Defendants’ reckless addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire will increase fear and distrust, depress response rates, and produce a disproportionate undercount of
5

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 6 of 42
residents in states and localities with high numbers of certain demographic groups, including noncitizens, immigrants, non-English speakers, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin. This undercount will have harmful, decade-long effects for everyone who lives in these communities—citizens and noncitizens, native and foreign-born. Voters will be denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equitable political representation based on actual population, and billions of dollars in federal funding—for education, infrastructure, health care, and countless other pressing needs—will be unlawfully misallocated.
11. The 2020 Census must be carried out in accordance with the highest standards of statistical reliability, accuracy, and completeness, to ensure that the Constitution’s mandate to conduct an “actual Enumeration” of all “persons” is fulfilled. Plaintiffs bring this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful action and prevent severe injuries to themselves and to innumerable other citizens and noncitizens in states and localities across the country.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), and this Court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other relief against the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705-706. 13. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, see Ex. 1, and its submission of the final census questions to Congress on March 29, 2018, see Ex. 2, constitute final agency action that is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706. 14. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1). First, Defendants United States Census Bureau, Ron Jarmin (in his official capacity), and Enrique Lamas (in his official
6

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 7 of 42
capacity) reside in Prince George’s County within this District. Second, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. Third, Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, and Joanne Wilson reside in Prince George’s County within this District, and no real property is involved in this action.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Robyn Kravitz resides in District Heights, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Ms. Kravitz’s daughter currently attends a public school in Prince George’s County. Her son recently attended, and is expected to re-enroll soon, in a public school in Prince George’s County that receives funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“Title I”). District Heights falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Kravitz regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work. 16. Plaintiff Michael Kravitz resides in District Heights, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Mr. Kravitz’s daughter currently attends a public school in Prince George’s County. His son recently attended, and is expected to re-enroll soon, in a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. District Heights falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Kravitz regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, including for his daily commute to work. 17. Plaintiff Richard McCune resides in Nogales, Arizona, a city located in Santa Cruz County. Mr. McCune regularly drives on highways and roads in Santa Cruz County and other parts of Arizona.
7

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 8 of 42
18. Plaintiff Jose Moreno resides in Somerton, Arizona, a city located in Yuma County. Mr. Moreno is the Vice Principal at Somerton Middle School, a public school that receives Title I funding. He has three children who attend public schools that receive Title I funding. Mr. Moreno regularly drives on highways and roads in Yuma County.
19. Plaintiff Catherine Nwosu resides in Langley Park, Maryland, an unincorporated area in Prince George’s County. Ms. Nwosu’s son attends a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. Langley Park falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Nwosu regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work.
20. Plaintiff Nnabugwu Nwosu resides in Langley Park, Maryland, an unincorporated area in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. Nwosu’s son attends a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. Langley Park falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Nwosu regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, including for his daily commute to work.
21. Plaintiff Joanne Wilson resides in Bowie, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Two of Ms. Wilson’s children attend public school in Prince George’s County. Bowie falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Wilson regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work.
22. Defendant United States Department of Commerce is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. It oversees the development, content, and
8

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 9 of 42
implementation of the federal decennial census, including the 2020 Census, by the United States Census Bureau.
23. Defendant United States Census Bureau is an agency within the Commerce Department. It is responsible for developing and implementing the 2020 Census, subject to oversight by the Commerce Department.
24. Defendant Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., is the Secretary of Commerce. He has responsibility for overseeing the Bureau, including with respect to the Bureau’s responsibility to develop and implement the 2020 Census. Secretary Ross is sued in his official capacity.
25. Defendant Karen Dunn Kelley is the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. She oversees the Department’s statistical programs, including the United States Census Bureau. She is sued in her official capacity.
26. Defendant Ron Jarmin is performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of the United States Census Bureau. He has responsibility for the development and implementation of the 2020 Census. He is sued in his official capacity.
27. Defendant Enrique Lamas is performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the United States Census Bureau. He has responsibility for the development and implementation of the 2020 Census. He is sued in his official capacity.
LEGAL BACKGROUND A. The Constitutional Mandate to Count All “Persons”
28. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (the “Census Clause”) of the United States Constitution mandates that the federal government shall conduct an “actual Enumeration” of the United States population every ten years. As amended by Section 2 of the Fourteenth
9

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 10 of 42
Amendment, this “Enumeration” must count “the whole number of persons in each state,” regardless of such persons’ status as citizens or noncitizens.
29. Pursuant to the Census Clause, representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives “shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers,” based upon the decennial census. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Apportionment must be “based on total population,” regardless of citizenship. Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1127-29 (2015). An “actual Enumeration” for purposes of apportionment is the sole constitutional objective of the decennial census.
30. States also use population data from the decennial census to draw congressional and state legislative districts of equal population, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
31. In addition, federal government agencies utilize data from the decennial census, including population data, to allocate more than $675 billion in federal funds involving over 130 different federal programs.1 This includes funding for public schools under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and for federal transportation planning programs, some of which is calculated based on the population of urbanized areas. Decennial census data also impacts funding for a wide range of other programs, including special education, Head Start, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, child care assistance, foster care, adoption assistance, home energy assistance, and the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children.
1 Marisa Hotchkiss and Jessica Phelan, Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution at 3 (Sept. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-inFederal-Funds-Distribution.pdf.
10

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 11 of 42
B. The Statutory and Regulatory Framework (1) Congress’s Specification of the Bureau’s Duties Under the Census Act 32. Pursuant to its constitutional authority to prescribe the “Manner” in which
the decennial census is taken, Congress has delegated the duty of conducting the census to the Secretary of Commerce under the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141. Although the Secretary has authority to determine the “form and content” of the census, id. § 141(a), this discretion is not unlimited.
33. In particular, the preparation for the decennial census is a decade-long undertaking subject to interim statutory deadlines and congressional oversight. The Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(a), directs the Secretary to take a decennial census of “population as of the first day of April” in 1980 “and every ten years thereafter” (the “Census Date”). This “tabulation of total population by State” must be completed within nine months of the Census Date. Id. § 141(b).
34. Not later than three years before the Census Date, the Secretary must submit a report containing his “determination” as to the subjects to be included and the types of information to be compiled in the next decennial census. Id. § 141(f)(1). The deadline for submission of this report for the 2020 Census was March 31, 2017.
35. Not later than two years before the Census Date, the Secretary must submit another report to Congress setting forth his “determination” as to the questions to be asked in the next decennial census. Id. § 141(f)(2). The deadline for submission of this report for the 2020 Census was March 31, 2018.
36. The Secretary may not modify the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in a report under § 141(f)(1) or (f)(2) without finding that “new
11

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 12 of 42
circumstances exist which necessitate” such a modification and reporting that finding to Congress. Id. § 141(f)(3).
(2) The Requirements of Independence, Impartiality, and Statistical Rigor in Conducting the Decennial Census
37. The Secretary’s discretion is also limited by the statutory and regulatory framework that Congress has established to ensure that the Census Bureau provides impartial, unbiased, and objective data consistent with the highest standards of statistical accuracy and reliability.
38. The Census Bureau is a “statistical agency” within the “Federal statistical system” subject to the standards and directives of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-21. The PRA directs OMB to ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes” by federal statistical agencies, id. § 3504(e)(1)(B), including by issuing “[g]overnment-wide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines” governing “statistical collection procedures and methods,” id. § 3504(e)(3)(A).
39. Under the PRA, the Census Bureau must adhere to OMB’s “statistical policy and coordination” standards, including with respect to data collection and analysis. Id. § 3506(e)(4); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1320.18(c) (OMB regulation requiring agency compliance with “the information policies, principles, standards, and guidelines prescribed by OMB” under the PRA).
40. Through the Information Quality Act (“IQA”), Congress further underscored the importance of the PRA’s requirement that agencies disseminate objective and
12

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 13 of 42
accurate information.2 The IQA instructs OMB and federal agencies to issue guidance for “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate.”3
41. Pursuant to its authority over the Federal statistical system under 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e), OMB has issued directives defining the statistical standards that agencies, including the Census Bureau, must follow. In particular, OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, entitled “Fundamental Responsibilities of Federal Statistical Agencies and Recognized Statistical Units,” requires the Census Bureau to “apply sound statistical methods to ensure statistical products are accurate,” and to “produce data that are impartial, clear, and complete and are readily perceived as such by the public.”4 To guarantee such impartiality, statistical agencies including the Census Bureau “must function in an environment that is clearly separate and autonomous from the other administrative, regulatory, law enforcement, or policy-making activities within their respective Departments” and “must be able to conduct statistical activities autonomously when determining what information to collect and process.”5
42. Further, OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, entitled “Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys,” requires the Census Bureau, inter alia, to (i) design its surveys “to achieve the highest practical rates of response, commensurate with the importance of survey uses”; (ii) pretest the survey components, if they have not been successfully used before,
2 Consol. Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000) (amending PRA). 3 Id. § 515(a). 4 Office of Mgmt. and Budget, Statistical Policy Directive No. 1., Fundamental Responsibilities of Fed. Statistical Agencies and Recognized Statistical Units, 79 Fed. Reg. 71,610, 71,615 (Dec. 2, 2014). 5 Id.
13

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 14 of 42
to “ensure that all components of a survey function as intended when implemented in the fullscale survey” and that “measurement error is controlled”; and (iii) administer the survey in a way that “maximiz[es] data quality” while “minimizing respondent burden and cost.”6
43. Consistent with OMB directives, the Census Bureau has issued its own Statistical Quality Standards that “address[] the Census Bureau’s unique methodological and operational issues” and “apply to all information products released by the Census Bureau and the activities that generate those products.”7
44. Pursuant to its obligations under the IQA, the Census Bureau has also issued stringent Information Quality Guidelines that require the Bureau to “provide information that is accurate, reliable and unbiased.”8
45. As federal administrative agencies, the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau are also subject to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. Under the APA, agency action is unlawful and courts must set such action aside if it is, inter alia, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A); “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B); “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” id. § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).
6 Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys at §§ 1.3, 1.4, 2.3 (2006), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_s urveys.pdf (emphasis added); see also 71 Fed. Reg. 55,522 (Sept. 22, 2006). 7 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at ii (Reissued Jul. 2013), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/about/about-the-bureau/policies_and_notices/ quality/statistical-quality-standards/Quality_Standards.pdf. 8 U.S. Census Bureau, Information Quality: Objectivity, https://www.census.gov/about/policies/ quality/guidelines/objectivity.html (last revised Apr. 17, 2015).
14

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 15 of 42
(3) The Necessity of Rigorous Pretesting of Census Questions and Other Content
46. Rigorous pretesting of all survey questions and questionnaires as a whole is an essential component of the Census Bureau’s preparations for the decennial census, including the 2020 Census. Consistent with the pretesting requirement set forth in OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, the Bureau’s own Statistical Quality Standards specify that “[d]ata collection instruments and supporting materials must be pretested with respondents to identify problems” and must then be “refined, prior to implementation, based on pretesting results.”9 The Bureau’s pretesting must consider problems related not only to the content of a question, but also to “order/context effects, skip instructions, formatting, [and] navigation”; pretesting must also verify that a question does not cause “undue burden” and is not “unduly sensitive.”10
47. Furthermore, additions or changes to the questions contained in the decennial census questionnaire must be pretested to ensure that they are necessary and will not compromise the impartiality, accuracy, and reliability of census data. As stated by the Bureau at its January 2018 quarterly Program Management Review:
Adding a question or making a change to the Decennial Census . . . involves extensive testing, review, and evaluation. This process ensures the change is necessary and will produce quality useful information for the nation . . . . Final proposed questions result from extensive cognitive and field testing to ensure they result in the proper data with an integrity that meets the Census Bureau’s high standards.11
9 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at 8. 10 Id. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Jan. 26, 2018 Program Mgmt. Review Tr. at 20, https://www2.census. gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/pmr-materials/01-262018/transcript-2018-01-26-pmr.pdf. See also Review of 1990 Decennial Census Questionnaire:
15

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 16 of 42
48. Because the Census Bureau will provide language support for the 2020 Census in multiple foreign languages, such pretesting must be conducted not only in English but also in multiple other languages. The Bureau’s Statistical Quality Standards require that “[d]ata collection instruments in any languages other than English must be pretested in the languages that will be used to collect data during production.”12 Both questionnaires and non-questionnaire materials must be prepared in multiple languages.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. The Census Bureau’s Extensive Pretesting of the 2020 Census Questionnaire
Without Any Question or Other Inquiry Regarding Citizenship 49. In light of the pretesting and other requirements imposed by the above legal framework, and the operational demands of preparing for a nationwide survey of every U.S. household, the Census Bureau began preparing for the 2020 Census in 2011. None of the Bureau’s preparations over the last seven years contemplated the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire. Indeed, the Bureau has done nothing to test the use of a citizenship question in the context of the 2020 Census questionnaire, including the impact that such a question would have on response rates. 50. The 2020 Census will utilize a single questionnaire, which contains only a limited number of questions designed to collect basic demographic information from every resident and determine the total population of persons residing in each state within the United
Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Census & Population of the Comm. on Post Office and Civil Serv., 100th Cong. 69 (April 1988) (Statement of John Keane, Dir. Bureau of the Census) (highlighting sensitivity of question wording and arrangement, and noting that without pretesting the Bureau “wouldn’t know the technical problems and uncertainty worries us as much as a negative test result”). 12 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at 10.
16

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 17 of 42
States.13 Prior to 2010 and for much of the 20th century, the decennial census used both a “shortform” and a “long-form” questionnaire. The short-form questionnaire, sent to the vast majority of U.S. households, was similar to the single questionnaire that will be used in the 2020 Census. The long-form questionnaire was sent only to a limited random sample of U.S. households and was designed to collect more detailed social, housing, and economic information. Beginning with the 2010 decennial census, the long-form questionnaire was dropped and the decennial census was taken using a single short-form questionnaire sent to all U.S. households. In 2005, the Bureau began using the American Community Survey (“ACS”) to gather, on an ongoing, monthly basis, the more detailed population data from a sample of U.S. households that were previously collected on a decennial basis through the long-form questionnaire.
51. As part of its preparation for the 2020 Census, the Bureau and OMB conducted a “comprehensive review” of the content to be included in the 2020 Census questionnaire.14 In accordance with the Bureau’s rigorous testing protocols, this review included extensive testing of the wording, content, and layout of the 2020 Census questionnaire.
52. The Bureau has conducted an annual census test of various questions and technologies in every year since 2012. These tests are used to assess methods to improve the 2020 Census, including by identifying potential wording changes to questionnaire content, procedures to improve self-response rates, and follow-up procedures for residents who do not respond. For example, the 2012 National Census Test assessed self-response rates and evaluated the performance of a combined race and origin question. The 2013 Census Test considered methods to improve non-response follow-up procedures. The 2014 Census Test evaluated
13 Under 13 U.S.C § 221, United States residents are legally required to respond to the questionnaire. 14 U.S. Census Bureau, Jan. 26, 2018 Program Mgmt. Review Tr. at 21.
17

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 18 of 42
various technologies for enumeration and census responses, including the Internet and mobile devices. As part of the 2014 test, the Census Bureau examined respondents’ reactions, including privacy and confidentiality concerns.
53. In 2015, the Bureau conducted the National Content Test, which represented “the only opportunity to test [decennial census] content with a nationally representative sample prior to the 2020 Census.”15 The Bureau emphasized that, without the results of the 2015 National Content Test, it “would lack some of the key quantitative evidence needed to improve upon the current decennial census design.”16 The Bureau announced the results of this test in March 2017.17
54. The Census Bureau also has conducted cognitive testing of potential questionnaire content for the 2020 Census since at least 2015. These tests are used to understand how respondents interpret census questions and instructions, in the context of the entire questionnaire, in order to determine whether the questionnaire as a whole is interpreted as intended and to evaluate question sensitivity, including the potential impact on the rates and accuracy of responses.
15 U.S. Census Bureau, Supporting Statement for 2015 National Content Test at 15, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/decennial/2020 census/ 2015_census_tests/nct/2015-nct-omb-package.pdf. 16 Id. at 17. 17 For each decennial census since 1970, “the Census Bureau has conducted content tests to research and improve the design and function of different questions.” U.S. Census Bureau, Content Research (Jan. 11, 2017), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennialcensus/2020-census/research-testing/content-research.html. This thorough vetting process included testing of the language of specific questions in decennial National Content Tests in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2005, and 2015, as well as testing the performance of proposed topics and specific questions in the field with actual respondents.
18

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 19 of 42
55. In addition, the Bureau has conducted extensive testing of non-English
materials in order to “[o]ptimize the non-English content of questionnaires and associated nonquestionnaire materials across data collection modes.”18
56. The Bureau is now conducting its 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In past
censuses, the End-to-End Census Test was referred to as the “dress rehearsal”: it is “the final test to help prepare for the 2020 Census”19 and marks the “culmination” of the Bureau’s “extensive research and testing to inform census design.”20 The primary objective of the test is to “confirm” key features that will be deployed in the 2020 Census.21
57. The Census Bureau conducts testing specific to the decennial census
questionnaire throughout the decade and does not rely on data imported from testing on other
surveys to support decennial census testing. In particular, the Bureau has specifically emphasized
that testing data from other surveys cannot substitute for the 2018 End-to-End Test, which is the
final dress rehearsal for the 2020 Census:
[M]ost survey results cannot be directly applied to a decennial census environment. The size, scope, mandatory nature, importance of results (for such things as congressional apportionment, state redistricting efforts, and the allocation of billions of dollars in federal funds each year), and timing constraints (legal deadlines for producing apportionment and redistricting data) of the decennial census are unique. Thus, thorough and separate research and integrated testing must be conducted to ensure that new methods and
18 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Operational Plan Version 3.0, at 72 (Sept. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/planningdocs/2020-oper-plan3.pdf. 19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Census Test, Frequently Asked Questions for the 2018 Census Test, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2018-census-test/faqs.html (last revised Mar. 16, 2018). 20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Census Test, About this Test, https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/decennial-census/2018-census-test/about.html (last revised Mar. 16, 2018). 21 Id.
19

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 20 of 42
operations will work in a decennial census environment.22 58. None of the above-mentioned pretesting for the 2020 Census—including but not limited to the 2012 National Census Test, the 2013 Census Test, the 2014 National Census Test, the 2015 National Content Test, and the ongoing 2018 End-to-End Test—has included a citizenship question or gathered statistical data on the impact of a citizenship question in the context of the 2020 Census questionnaire. B. The Secretary’s 2017 Determination Not to Include Citizenship as a Subject of the 2020 Census 59. Under the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(1), the Secretary was required to submit a report to Congress by March 31, 2017, containing his determination as to the subjects and types of information to be collected on the 2020 Census. Pursuant to this provision, the Census Bureau submitted its report of the Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey (“March 2017 Report”) to Congress on March 28, 2017. 60. The March 2017 Report set forth the Secretary’s determination that the only subjects to be included on the 2020 Census questionnaire are age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship to head of household, and tenure (i.e., whether the respondent is an owner or renter).23 The March 2017 Report made no reference to inclusion of citizenship as a subject for the 2020 Census. 61. The Secretary’s determination not to include citizenship as a subject of the 2020 Census was consistent with long-standing agency policy and practice going back nearly 60
22 U.S. Census Bureau, Supporting Statement for 2018 End-to-End Census Test—Peak Operations (Jan. 23, 2018), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument? ref_nbr=201801-0607-002. 23 U.S. Census Bureau, Subjects Planned for 2020 Census at 5-15 (Mar. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-subjects-2020acs.pdf.
20

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 21 of 42
years. The Census Bureau has consistently taken the position that asking all households and respondents to report their citizenship status as part of the decennial census would depress response rates, particularly among certain historically undercounted groups, and would compromise the accuracy and completeness of the census count.
62. In the 1950s, the Census Bureau determined that information on citizenship was not important enough to seek from every household and consequently removed the citizenship question from the short-form questionnaire for the 1960 decennial census. As noted above, since 1960, citizenship information has been collected only through the long-form questionnaire or the ACS, each administered only to a limited sample of the U.S. population. No question concerning citizenship appeared on the short-form questionnaire used to conduct the decennial census in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
63. Prior to the 1980 decennial census, an interagency council including Bureau officials was tasked with examining the content and coverage of the census questionnaire, and it expressly recommended that a citizenship question not be included on the short-form questionnaire.24
64. Prior to the 1990 decennial census, the Bureau publicly opposed the inclusion of any question concerning citizenship on the 1990 short-form questionnaire. The Bureau’s then-Director warned that a census question on citizenship and legal status could cause the Census Bureau to be adversely “perceived as an enforcement agency,” with “a major effect
24 Aff. of Daniel B. Levine, Deputy Dir. of the Census Bureau at ¶ 5, Ex. A to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss the Action or, in the Alt., for Summ. J., Fed’n for Am. Immigr. Reform v. Klutznick, No. 79-3269 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 9, 1983); see also U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census of Population and Housing History at 1-23 (Aug. 1989) (statement to Congress that inquiries about respondents’ legal status “would have seriously hampered its efforts to achieve a complete count”).
21

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 22 of 42
on census coverage.”25 The Director stated the Bureau’s conclusion that both undocumented immigrants and legal residents might “misunderstand or mistrust the census and fail or refuse to respond,” resulting in reduced census counts for some cities and states.26
65. In 2010, the Director of the Census Bureau, Robert Groves, explained that “we don’t ask citizenship or documentation status, all of the things that may make people uncomfortable are gone from [the census] form.”27
66. Echoing the Bureau’s long-standing policy, numerous former Census Bureau directors have emphasized the deleterious impact that a citizenship question would have in depressing response rates and diminishing the accuracy and completeness of the census. In 2005, Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census Bureau Director for the 2000 decennial census, explained that any proposed question to distinguish noncitizens from citizens “will be treated with suspicion” and cause “many American citizens as well as noncitizens” to avoid the question.28
67. In 2009, eight former Census Bureau Directors who served both Republican and Democratic administrations jointly declared that inclusion of a citizenship question would create “problems during door-to-door visits to unresponsive households, when a
25 Enumeration of Undocumented Aliens in the Decennial Census: Hr’g Before the Subcomm, on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Gov’t Processes of the S. Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong. 32 (1985) (Statement of John Keane, Dir., Bureau of the Census). 26 Exclude Undocumented Residents from Census Counts Used for Apportionment: Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Post Office & Civil Serv., 100th Cong. 50 (June 1988) (Statement of John Keane, Dir., Bureau of the Census). 27 Video of Robert Groves, C-SPAN (Mar. 26, 2010), https://www.c-span.org/video/?2927436/2010-us-census&start=1902. 28 Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Rep., Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the Cmte on Gov’t Reform, 109th Cong. 72 (Dec. 6, 2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt).
22

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 23 of 42
legalized ‘head of household’ would avoid enumerators because one or more other household members are present unlawfully.”29
68. In 2016, four former Census Bureau Directors appointed by presidents of both parties stated in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that “a one-by-one citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general,” and would “seriously frustrate the Census Bureau’s ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats among the states.”30 Citing increased suspicion of government collection of information in general, and particular anxiety among noncitizens, they stated that the addition of a citizenship question would result in “a reduced rate of response overall and an increase in inaccurate responses.”31
C. The Trump Administration Plays Politics With the 2020 Census 69. Immediately upon taking office in January 2017, President Trump
revealed his intention to press the 2020 Census into the service of his anti-immigration political agenda, by shoehorning a citizenship question into the 2020 Census questionnaire.
70. By January 31, 2017, less than two weeks after President Trump’s inauguration, the administration had prepared a draft Executive Order which, among other things, directed the Census Bureau to ask “questions to determine U.S. citizenship and
29 Statement of Former Census Directors on Adding a New Question to the 2010 Census at 1-2 (Oct. 16, 2009), https://web.archive.org/web/20100718133124/https://thecensusproject.org/ letters/cp-formerdirs-16oct2009.pdf. 30 Amicus Br. of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau at 25, Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) (No. 14-940). 31 Id. at 5.
23

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 24 of 42
immigration status” through the decennial census.32 A background memo accompanying the draft order stated that its purpose was to “fulfill several campaign promises by aligning immigration policies with the national interest.”33 The memo further indicated that the provisions of the draft order were meant to address “the flow of illegal entries and visa overstays” and the “unlawful employment of aliens.”34 Neither the draft order, which to date has not been issued, nor the background memo detailing its objectives made any mention of the VRA.
71. Kris Kobach, who advised President Trump on immigration issues during the 2016 Presidential campaign and served on the Trump transition team, has acknowledged that in the early days of the Trump presidency he urged the President to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire.
72. On December 12, 2017, Arthur Gary, general counsel for the DOJ’s Justice Management Division, sent a letter addressed to Defendant Jarmin (the “DOJ Letter”), requesting that the Census Bureau include a question about citizenship status on the 2020 Census questionnaire.35 The DOJ Letter asserted that obtaining citizenship data from the decennial
32 Abigail Hauslohner and Janell Ross, Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs, Wash. Post (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www. washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draftimmigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c230e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.4d2d4847755a; The White House, Memorandum from Andrew Bremberg to the President at 7 (Jan. 23, 2017), https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/ uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/Protecting_American_Jobs_and_Workers_by_Strengthening_ the_Integrity_of_Foreign_Worker_Visa_Programs.0.pdf [hereinafter “January 2017 Memorandum”]. 33 January 2017 Memorandum at 1. 34 Id. 35 Letter from Arthur E. Gary, General Counsol, Justice Management Division to Dr. Ron Jarmin (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4340651-Text-of-Dec-2017-DOJletter-to-Census.html [hereinafter “DOJ Letter”].
24

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 25 of 42
census was “critical to the [DOJ’s] enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act” because the ACS allegedly does not yield “ideal” data on citizen voting age population (“CVAP”),36 a relevant data point for certain Section 2 cases.
73. Emails released by the DOJ in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show that the DOJ Letter was sent at the request of DOJ leadership. The U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has in the past expressed public support for including a citizenship question in the decennial census as a tool to assist law enforcement in locating undocumented immigrants.
74. While the DOJ Letter was still under review by the Secretary and the Census Bureau, and only days before the Secretary’s announcement of his decision, the President’s reelection campaign sent a mass fundraising email declaring: “The President wants the 2020 United States Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens. . . . The President wants to know if you’re on his side.”37 The email then provided survey response buttons that linked to a page seeking campaign contributions.
75. On March 26, 2018, Defendant Ross issued a memorandum to Defendant Kelley (the “Ross Memorandum”) advising the Census Bureau of his determination to reverse nearly 60 years of Census Bureau policy and practice in 2020 by including a citizenship question on the census questionnaire to be sent to every U.S. household. See Ex. 1, attached, at 8.
36 Id. at 1-2. 37 Tierney Sneed, Trump Fundraising Off Controversial Push To Include Citizenship Question In Census, Talking Points Memo (Mar. 19, 2018), https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ trump-fundraising-off-controversial-push-to-include-citizenship-question-in-census.
25

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 26 of 42
Secretary Ross’ decision was reportedly opposed by career officials at the Census Bureau and the Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee.38
76. Two days later, on March 28, 2018, the President’s reelection campaign released yet another mass fundraising email, announcing that “President Trump has officially mandated that the 2020 United States Census ask people living in America whether or not they are citizens.” The email asked respondents to sign a petition supporting “the President’s decision” to “make citizenship a question on the 2020 United States Census.”39
D. The Secretary’s Unlawful Failure to Identify Any Valid Basis for the Belated Insertion of a Citizenship Question Into the 2020 Census Questionnaire 77. The Ross Memorandum asserted that the Secretary had taken a “hard
look” at the request in the DOJ Letter and considered “all facts and data relevant” to making an informed decision regarding the DOJ request. Ex. 1 at 1. However, the Memorandum contained no evaluation of the asserted legal or statistical foundation for the DOJ request and no independent assessment by the Commerce Department or Census Bureau of the asserted governmental benefit of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire.
38 Justin Elliott, Wilbur Ross Overruled Career Officials at Census Bureau to Add Citizenship Question, ProPublica (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.propublica.org/article/wilbur-ross-overruledcareer-officials-at-census-bureau-to-add-citizenship-question; Michael Wines, Census Bureau’s Own Expert Panel Rebukes Decision to Add Citizenship Question, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/us/census-bureau-citizenship.html; Census Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting, Day 1, video at 1:56:25-2:17:42 (Presentation of Dr. D. Sunshine Hillygus, Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee) (Mar. 29, 2018), https://youtu.be/ JlxZ16qRo9s; id. at 2:28:15-2:28:22 (Statement of Dr. Barbara Anderson, Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee). 39 Ray Schultz, Trump Campaign Exploits Citizenship Question In Email, Elite Marketing Daily Mar. 29, 2018), https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/316863/trump-campaignexploits-citizenship-question-in-em.html.
26

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 27 of 42
78. In particular, the Ross Memorandum accepted at face value the DOJ Letter’s assertion that “census block level” CVAP data are needed to enforce Section 2 of the VRA and determined, on that basis, that a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 Census questionnaire. In fact, enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA has never depended on block-level CVAP data. The sampling of citizenship information collected through the long-form questionnaire and the ACS never provided data at that level, yet courts have consistently recognized the reliability of citizenship data from the long-form questionnaire and ACS for purposes of Section 2 enforcement.40
79. In 2000, the Census Bureau conducted its own analysis of the VRA’s implications for the decennial census and concluded that the VRA required data on the “number of persons by age, race, and Hispanic origin at the [census] block level,” but did not require block-level CVAP data.41 The Ross Memorandum failed to cite the Bureau’s prior conclusion that the VRA only required block-level data on age, race, and Hispanic origin. Nor did it identify any relevant recent change to the legal requirements for the enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA, or suggest that the Bureau had made any finding that its prior determination was flawed.
80. The Ross Memorandum also did not acknowledge that the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire would result in the addition of a new subject for the 2020 Census not reported to Congress in the Bureau’s March 2017 Report pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(1). The Memorandum failed to identify any “new circumstances” arising since March 2017 that necessitated this expansion of the 2020 Census subjects previously
40 See, e.g., Cisneros v. Pasadena Indep. School Dist., No. 4:12-CV-2579, 2014 WL 1668500, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014) (“This Court, like others, finds the ACS’s estimates of CVAP sufficiently reliable for use in voting rights litigation.”); Rodriguez v. Harris Cnty., 964 F. Supp. 2d 686, 727-28 (S.D. Tex. 2013); Meza v. Galvin, 322 F. Supp. 2d 52, 61-62 (D. Mass. 2004). 41 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing History at 39 (Dec. 2009).
27

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 28 of 42
reported to Congress in March 2017—as required under 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(3) to justify such a modification.
81. Although none of the Bureau’s testing for the 2020 Census contemplated or evaluated the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census questionnaire, the Ross Memorandum claimed that “the citizenship question has been well tested” because it has been used in sample surveys, including the ACS. Ex. 1 at 2. However, this claim is contradicted by the Ross Memorandum itself, which dismissed evidence that noncitizens and Hispanics and Latinos had lower response rates to sample surveys asking about citizenship status on the ground that “the decennial census has differed significantly in nature from the sample surveys.” Id. at 3.
82. Furthermore, use and testing of the citizenship question in the context of the ACS or long-form sample surveys do not make the question “well tested” for purposes of the 2020 Census for several reasons. First, the Census Bureau’s Statistical Quality Standards require it to test not only the wording of questions in isolation, but also the order and context effects, the instructions, and the formatting of the entire questionnaire. Second, the experience with prior sample surveys will understate the extent of non-response because, as the Census Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee explained in a March 30, 2018 letter, the earlier sample surveys were conducted “in a different data collection context, in a different political climate, before antiimmigrant attitudes were as salient and consequential” as they are today.42 Third, the procedures for collecting data as part of the ACS survey differ from the decennial census procedures in ways that could impact how certain questions affect response rates and data quality. For example, the
42 Michael Wines, Census Bureau’s Own Expert Panel Rebukes Decision to Add Citizenship Question, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2018).
28

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 29 of 42
ACS is conducted only by experienced Bureau personnel whereas the much larger decennial census relies upon a cohort of temporary survey workers to count the entire U.S. population.
83. Ultimately, the Secretary decided to add an untested citizenship question to the 2020 Census despite his explicit admission that the Department did not know, and was unable to determine, the impact such a question would have on nonresponse rates and the potential undercounting of immigrants and other hard-to-count populations. The Ross Memorandum asserted that “no empirical data existed on the impact of a citizenship question on responses,” and the Department “is not able to determine definitively how inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial census will impact responsiveness.” Id. at 3, 7.
84. Having conducted no independent review of the value of CVAP data for VRA enforcement, and having made no findings concerning the impact on nonresponses, the Secretary lacked any valid basis to evaluate and compare the potential benefits and harms of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census at this late stage in the preparation process, after years of census pretesting had been completed and with the 2018 End-to-End Census Test already underway.
85. Nonetheless, the Secretary declared in the Ross Memorandum that the data would be “more complete and accurate,” and the “value” of a citizenship question “outweighs such concerns [about nonresponses]” and “is of greater importance than any adverse effect that may result,” regardless of its “impact on responses.” Id. at 7.
86. On March 29, 2018, the Census Bureau submitted its report (the “March 2018 Report”) to Congress pursuant to the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(2), identifying the questions to be asked in the 2020 Census. See Ex. 2, attached. The March 2018 Report confirmed that the Census Bureau has made a final determination to include an additional question in the
29

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 30 of 42
2020 Census questionnaire asking respondents to provide U.S. citizenship information for each household member. Id. at 7. The March 2018 Report asserts, without explanation, that citizenship statistics “are essential for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and its protections against voting discrimination.” Id.
87. The Census Bureau’s determination to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 Census questionnaire contravenes the Bureau’s legal obligations as a federal statistical agency and violates the regulatory directives and standards that require the Bureau to design the decennial census to maximize response rates. Defendants failed to identify any valid basis for deviating from decades of consistent policy and practice. Without the mandatory pretesting of a citizenship question—which it is now too late to complete—the Bureau cannot correct those errors before the 2020 Census proceeds.
E. The Disproportionate Undercount That Will Result From Use of a Citizenship Question 88. The Ross Memorandum claimed to have found that “limited empirical
evidence exists about whether adding a citizenship question would decrease response rates materially.” Ex. 1 at 5. In fact, the evidence is compelling that the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of persons belonging to or sharing a household with certain demographic groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency (“LEPs”), and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin (the “Undercount Groups”).
89. Research and testing on census participation, including work conducted by the Bureau, have shown that the Undercount Groups are traditionally “hard to count” for purposes of the decennial census. This is in part because they are more likely to be suspicious about the purpose of the decennial census and the government’s use of census data. The Bureau
30

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 31 of 42
itself has found that questions about citizenship in government surveys are especially “sensitive” and are likely to trigger and exacerbate these concerns about the confidentiality and use of respondent data.43 The inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 Census is therefore expected to reduce participation and depress response rates among the Undercount Groups.
90. To the extent that the Bureau’s experience with the citizenship question in sample surveys is helpful in understanding its likely impact on the 2020 Census, the available data referred to in the Ross Memorandum actually substantiate concerns that a citizenship question will depress response rates among certain demographic groups. For example, the Bureau has measured the relative response rates for citizens and noncitizens to the 2000 shortform census questionnaire, which did not ask about citizenship status, and the 2000 long-form questionnaire, which did. For noncitizens, as the Ross Memorandum notes, the decline in the response rate to the long form relative to the short form was 3.3% greater than it was for citizens. In other words, noncitizens were disproportionately more non-responsive than citizens to a census survey that inquired about citizenship status. Similarly, in the ACS surveys conducted from 2013 through 2016, nonresponse rates for the specific question about citizenship were materially higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that Hispanics are less likely to respond to survey questions about citizenship.
91. Furthermore, the current political environment has substantially increased the risk of census nonresponse to a citizenship question among the Undercount Groups. Recent census field-testing has shown that these groups have become even more suspicious and
43 U.S. Census Bureau, DS-16: Policy on Respondent Identification and Sensitive Topics in Dependent Interviewing (Dec. 9, 2014), https://www2.census.gov/foia/ds_policies/ds016.pdf.
31

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 32 of 42
distrustful of government efforts to collect personal data since President Trump took office in 2017.
92. In September 2017, the Bureau’s own Center for Survey Measurement (“CSM”) reported that survey-testing efforts undertaken by the Bureau in 2017 revealed an unprecedented climate of fear among certain hard-to-count populations, including noncitizens, immigrants, LEPs, and Latinos.44 Survey respondents repeatedly expressed concerns about the confidentiality and use of survey response data and fears related to ongoing issues involving immigration enforcement policy. CSM found that these concerns were raised to a much greater degree than in previous years.
93. Furthermore, such fears led many respondents to deliberately falsify survey responses or refuse to respond at all. In one instance, a Bureau field representative reported on her experience conducting a health survey interview (unrelated to the decennial census) that included questions about citizenship status. A Spanish-speaking respondent initially acknowledged that he was not a citizen, but then appeared to lie about his country of origin. When the field representative started asking about his year of entry into the United States, he stopped responding to her questions and eventually walked out and left the field representative alone in his apartment, which the representative noted “had never happened to her during an interview before.”45
94. In another set of interviews testing an internet self-response instrument in English and Spanish, numerous respondents “intentionally provided incomplete or incorrect
44 Memorandum from Ctr. for Survey Measurement (CSM) to Assoc. Dir. for Research and Methodology (Sept. 20, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/MemoRegarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf. 45 Id. at 5.
32

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 33 of 42
information about household members due to concerns regarding confidentiality, particularly relating to perceived negative attitudes towards immigrants.”46 On the basis of its extensive research, CSM found that the “level of deliberate falsification of the household roster, and spontaneous mention of concerns regarding negative attitudes toward immigrants” was “largely unprecedented.”47
95. The Bureau itself concluded that the CSM findings demonstrated “an unprecedented groundswell in confidentiality and data-sharing concerns among immigrants or those who live with immigrants” that could “present a barrier to participation in the 2020 Census” and “impact data quality and coverage for the 2020 Census.”48 According to the Bureau, this is “[p]articularly troubling due to the disproportionate impact on hard-to-count [immigrant] populations.”49
96. In light of these findings, the Secretary’s determination to order the Bureau to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census is particularly arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Bureau’s fundamental obligations as a statistical agency. While failing to acknowledge or consider the Bureau’s own findings above, the Ross Memorandum openly admits that the Department has no idea what impact adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census will have on response rates among the Undercount Groups.
46 Id. at 2. 47 Id. at 3. 48 See U.S. Census Bureau, Nat’l Advisory Comm. on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, Respondent Confidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects on Response Rates and Data Quality for 2020 Census, 15 (Nov. 2, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/201711/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf. 49 Id.
33

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 34 of 42
F. Plaintiffs’ Injury Resulting From Defendants’ Unlawful Distortion of the 2020 Census 97. As explained above, the inclusion of a citizenship question is likely to
result in a disproportionate undercount of individuals in the Undercount Groups. 98. According to recent ACS data, the population of Arizona has a higher
percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Arizona residents relative to the rest of the country.
99. Plaintiffs Richard McCune and Jose Moreno reside in areas of Arizona in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of Arizona as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of these areas of Arizona relative to the rest of the state.
100. According to recent ACS data, the population of Prince George’s County, Maryland has a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than both the United States and Maryland as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Prince George’s County residents relative to the rest of the country and the rest of the state.
101. Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census population counts are used to determine the number of congressional representatives apportioned to each state. Based on recent population growth trends, Arizona is likely to gain one congressional seat following the 2020 Census. The disproportionate undercount that will result from use of a citizenship question in the 2020 Census is expected to deprive Arizona of this additional congressional seat.
34

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 35 of 42
102. Arizona and Maryland use decennial census data to draw congressional and state legislative districts of equal population. Plaintiffs reside in areas of those states where the residents will be disproportionately undercounted relative to the rest of the state due to the inclusion of a citizenship question. Thus, if a citizenship question is used in the 2020 Census, the drawing of “equal population” districts based on 2020 Census data will result in the overpopulation of Plaintiffs’ congressional and state legislative districts, thereby diluting Plaintiffs’ votes.
103. As described above, see supra ¶ 30, U.S. census population data are essential in determining the federal government’s allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to states and localities under more than 130 federal programs.
104. The disproportionate undercount caused by the use of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire will reduce the amount of these federal funds that are distributed to Arizona, to localities within Arizona in which Plaintiffs McCune and Moreno reside, and to Prince George’s County, including for programs and projects on which Plaintiffs directly rely.
105. For example, under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government distributes funding to school districts to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in public schools. In fiscal year 2016, the program distributed more than $15 billion, including $333.8 million to schools in Arizona and $38.6 million to schools in Prince George’s County. The amount of funding provided to a school district is determined, in part, by the number of individuals and school-age children counted in the decennial census.
106. Plaintiff Jose Moreno sends his children to public schools in Arizona school districts that receive Title I funding. The population in these school districts has a higher
35

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 36 of 42
percentage of Undercount Groups than the entire populations of the United States and Arizona, respectively. A disproportionate undercount in these school districts in the 2020 Census will therefore result in reduced Title I funding for schools in those districts.
107. Plaintiffs Catherine and Nnabugwu Nwosu send their son to a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. A disproportionate undercount in Prince George’s County in the 2020 Census will result in reduced Title I funding for schools in the county.
108. The allocation of federal transportation funding, including funds available under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program and the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs, depends on the decennial census population count. The amount of funding provided to a state under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs is based on the population of urbanized areas in that state compared to those of other states, as determined by the decennial census. The amount of funding provided to an area within a state under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program is based, in part, on the relative share of the population in that area, as determined by the decennial census.
109. Plaintiffs Richard McCune and Jose Moreno regularly drive on highways and roads in Arizona, including the areas of the state in which they reside. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in Arizona in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Arizona under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs. A disproportionate undercount in the areas of the state in which Plaintiffs McCune and Moreno reside will result in reduced transportation funding in those areas under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.
36

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 37 of 42
110. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, and Joanne Wilson regularly drive on highways and roads, and use other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, Maryland. A disproportionate undercount in Prince George’s County in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Prince George’s County under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
(Violation of Census Clause) 111. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully made herein. 112. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, require that the Census Bureau conduct an “actual Enumeration” of “the whole number of persons in each State.” 113. The federal government must conduct the decennial census in a manner “consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 804 (1992). The paramount objective of the Census Clause, as amended, is to ensure that all “persons” residing in each state are counted in the decennial census, regardless of their citizenship status. Decisions regarding the conduct of the census must therefore bear “a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 20 (1996). 114. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire without regard to its potential to cause a disproportionate undercount of certain
37

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 38 of 42
demographic groups is inconsistent with the constitutional purposes of the census and does not bear a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.
115. The inclusion of a citizenship question as part of the 2020 Census will result in a disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin.
116. This undercount will disproportionately affect the states and/or localities in which Plaintiffs reside by, inter alia, depriving those states of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives to which they are entitled and causing under-allocations of federal funding to those states and/or localities.
117. Plaintiffs Richard McCune and Jose Moreno will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Arizona of an additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
118. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, and Joanne Wilson will be harmed, inter alia, because the disproportionate undercount will (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
COUNT II (Violation of Administrative Procedure Act) 119. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully made herein. 120. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is, inter alia, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
38

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 39 of 42
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A); “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B); “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” id. § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).
121. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire, as set forth in the March 26, 2018 Ross Memorandum and confirmed by the Census Bureau in its March 29, 2018 Report to Congress, constitutes final agency action.
122. Defendants’ decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census questionnaire is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority; and without observance of procedure required by law.
123. Defendants, inter alia, failed to conduct an adequate independent review of the need to collect citizenship data through the decennial census alleged in the DOJ Letter; failed to provide a reasoned explanation for why such data are necessary to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; failed to reasonably assess the impact of including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire on the response rates of various population groups; departed, without any reasoned basis, from the Bureau’s own policy and practice of not asking about the citizenship status of every individual; departed, without any reasoned basis, from the Bureau’s own statistical quality standards; made its decision regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question based on improper political considerations; violated binding law and regulations regarding statistical collection procedures and methods; breached the Constitutional duty to conduct an “actual Enumeration” of the population; and failed to identify or report to Congress any new circumstances that could justify modification of Defendants’ prior decision not to
39

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 40 of 42
include citizenship as a subject matter for the 2020 Census, as required under 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(3). Defendants’ action is therefore unlawful and must be set aside pursuant to APA § 706(2)(A)-(D).
124. Defendants’ determination to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire will result in a disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin, in the 2020 Census.
125. Plaintiffs Richard McCune and Jose Moreno will suffer a legal wrong and be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because, inter alia, the resulting disproportionate undercount will (i) dilute their vote by depriving Arizona of an additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
126. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, and Joanne Wilson will suffer a legal wrong and be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because, inter alia, the resulting disproportionate undercount will (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
127. Plaintiffs will therefore be harmed by Defendants’ unlawful action unless such action is set aside pursuant to § 706 of the APA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 128. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
40

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 41 of 42
a) Declare that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the questionnaire used for all households and individuals in the 2020 Census is unauthorized by, and contrary to, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution;
b) Declare that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the questionnaire used for all households and individuals in the 2020 Census is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of § 706(2)(A)-(D) of the APA;
c) Enjoin Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire, and from taking any irreversible steps to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire;
d) Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
e) Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.

Date: April 11, 2018

Respectfully submitted,
_____/s/_______________ Daniel Grant (Bar Number: 19659) Shankar Duraiswamy* Bianca Nunes*
41

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 1 Filed 04/11/18 Page 42 of 42
Tina M. Thomas* Karun Tilak* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001-4956 Tel: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 662-6302 dgrant@cov.com sduraiswamy@cov.com bnunes@cov.com tthomas@cov.com ktilak@cov.com P. Benjamin Duke* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Tel: (212) 841-1000 Fax: (212) 841-1010 pbduke@cov.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs * pro hac vice application forthcoming
42

 
 Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

*

ROBYN KRAVITZ, et al.,

*

Plaintiffs,

*

v.

*

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

COMMERCE, et al.,

*

Case No.: GJH-18-1041

Defendants.

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Every ten years, the Census Bureau takes on the herculean task of counting the entire

population of the United States. The Census Bureau expends considerable resources on this task,

presumably to ensure that the count is as accurate as possible because an accurate count is

essential to ensure, among other things, equal representation—a hallmark of our Constitution. As

the 2020 Census approaches, the Census Bureau continues to refine its plans and prepare for the

next count. As a part of that refinement, earlier this year, the Census Bureau formally added a

new question to the census questionnaire, one that asks respondents to indicate whether each

household member is a citizen of the United States by birth or naturalization, or not a U.S.

citizen. Nineteen individual residents of Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)1 allege that this question will dramatically depress census response rates in their

1 Individual named Plaintiffs are: Diana Alexander (Houston, Texas); Lauren Rachel Berman (Dallas, Texas); Sarah Bryan (Edinburg, Texas); Alejandro Chavez (Phoenix Arizona); Virginia Garcia (Laredo, Texas); Michael Kagan (Las Vegas, Nevada); Robyn Kravitz (District Heights, Maryland); Michael Kravitz (District Heights, Maryland); Yamile Labori (West Palm Beach, Florida); Lazara Yoelvis Magadan (Miami, Florida); Richard McCune (Nogales, Arizona); Jose Moreno (Somerton, Arizona); Catherine Nwosu (Langley Park, Maryland); Nnabugwu Nwosu (Langley Park, Maryland); Linda Rivas (El Paso, Texas); T. Carter Ross (Hyattsville, Maryland); Martha Sanchez (McAllen, Texas); Sonia Casarez Shafer (Pharr, Texas); and Joanne Wilson (Bowie, Maryland).
1

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 2 of 35
local communities and disproportionally affect the overall accuracy of the population count.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Census Bureau from including the citizenship question in the 2020
Census and assert claims pursuant to the Census Clause of the United States Constitution (Count I) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) (Count II). ECF No. 17.2 Presently pending
before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Discovery, ECF No. 43. The Court held a Motions Hearing on July 18, 2018. See ECF No. 45.
For the following reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is denied and Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Discovery is granted. I. BACKGROUND3
A. Census Background
The United States Constitution mandates that the Congress conduct an “actual
Enumeration” of “the whole number of persons in each state” every ten years. U.S. Const., Art. I,
§ 2, cl. 3 and Am. XIV § 2 (hereinafter, “Census Clause” or “Enumeration Clause”). Through the
Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141 et seq., Congress has delegated the duty of conducting the
decennial census to the Secretary of Commerce, “in such form and content as he may
determine.” Id. § 141(a). In addition to counting the population, “the Secretary is authorized to
obtain such other information as necessary.” Id. The “actual Enumeration” resulting from the
decennial census is used to apportion representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, draw
2 Named Defendants include the United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau (“Census Bureau”), and the following officials sued in their official capacity: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”), Karen Dunn Kelley, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Ron Jarmin, Director of the Census Bureau, and Enrique Lamas, Deputy Director of the Census Bureau (collectively, “Defendants” or “Census Bureau”). 3 Unless noted otherwise, the facts are taken from the Amended Complaint, ECF No. 17, and assumed to be true. The Court may also take judicial notice of matters of public record and consider documents attached to the Amended Complaint or Motion to Dismiss, to the extent that they are integral to the Amended Complaint and authentic. See Phillips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Greenhouse v. MCG Capital Corp., 392 F.3d 650, 655 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004) (taking judicial notice of published stock prices when considering a motion to dismiss).
2

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 3 of 35
intra-state congressional and state legislative districts of equal proportion, and allocate more than $675 billion in federal funding for over 130 different federal programs. See ECF No. 17 ¶¶ 41– 43. Plaintiffs are either eligible to vote or are currently applying for U.S. citizenship and intend to vote in elections following the 2020 decennial census. Collectively, Plaintiffs utilize government services funded, in part, through federal expenditures for roads and highways, the Federal Foster Care Program (“Title IV-E”), Medicaid, and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“Act”). See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 16, 17.
While the primary purpose of the decennial census is to count the population for apportionment purposes, “the decennial census has grown considerably over the past 200 years” and is also used to collect demographic data on the population. See Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 341 (1999) (citations and internal quotations omitted). Since the 1820 enumeration, the decennial censuses have included questions related to foreign birth, naturalization, and citizenship in varying forms. See ECF No. 24-1 at 12 (citing U.S. Census Bureau, Measuring America: The Decennial Censuses From 1790 to 2000, at 6, https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2002/dec/pol_02-ma.pdf (hereinafter, “Measuring America”)).4 With the exception of the 1840 Census, all censuses from 1820 through 1950 asked all respondents for information relating to citizenship, birthplace, or both. See Measuring America at 9, 11, 13, 15. For example, the 1830 Census asked whether individuals were “foreigners not nationalized.” Id. at 7. The 1930 Census asked for the place of birth of all individuals and his or her parents, the year of immigration and naturalization for all foreign-born individuals, and whether he or she was able to speak English. Id. at 59. In 1940, the Census
4 Pin cites to documents filed on the Court’s electronic filing system (CM/ECF) refer to the page numbers generated by that system.
3

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 4 of 35
Bureau began the practice of sampling a portion of the population for more detailed information.5
Starting in 1970, the Census Bureau asked respondents to complete and mail back the census questionnaire. Most households received a short form questionnaire asking a minimum number of questions (“short form”), while a smaller number received a long-form questionnaire that included additional questions (“long form”). See U.S. Census Bureau, Questionnaires, https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/questionnaires/; see also ECF No. 17 ¶¶ 63, 75. In 1970, 20% of the population were asked to provide their birthplace, 15% were asked to provide their parents’ birthplace, and 5% were asked whether the individual respondent, if foreign born, had been naturalized. Measuring America at 78. In the 1980–2000 Censuses, one in six households received the long form questionnaire and were asked whether they had been naturalized (1980) or whether they were citizens (1990, 2000). Id. at 86, 91–92, 97. Following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau stopped using the long form questionnaire. Instead, starting in 2005, the Census Bureau began collecting monthly demographic data, including citizenship and national origin information, through the American Community Survey (“ACS”). The ACS is sent to approximately one in thirty-eight households each year. See U.S. Census Bureau, Archive of American Community Survey Questions, available at https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/acs/methodology/questionnaire-archive.html; see also ECF No. 17 ¶ 63.
5 In the 1940 and 1950 Censuses, all individuals were asked to provide information regarding their place of birth and citizenship or naturalization status. The sampling question in the 1940 and 1950 Censuses asked 5% or 20% of respondents, respectively, for the birthplaces of their parents. Measuring America at 62–63; 66, 68. In 1960, naturalization status was not requested, but 25% of respondents were asked to provide his or her birthplace, as well as the birthplace of his or her parents. Id. at 72–73. In these years, census enumerators obtained the requisite information from each household in-person. Id. at 72.
4

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 5 of 35
B. Preparation for the 2020 Census On March 28, 2017, the Census Bureau submitted a report to Congress (the “March 2017 Report”) indicating that the 2020 Census would ask respondents to answer questions on behalf of themselves and household members about their age, gender, race/ethnicity, and whether they owned or rented their residence. ECF No. 17 ¶¶ 72–73.6 Plaintiffs allege that the March 2017 Report did not include citizenship-related questions because, according to the Census Bureau, doing so “would depress response rates, particularly among certain historically undercounted groups, and would compromise the accuracy and completeness of the census count.” ECF No. 17 ¶ 74; see also id. ¶¶ 76–81. On March 26, 2018, Secretary Ross issued a memorandum setting forth his decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Id. ¶ 88; ECF No. 1-2 (“Ross Memorandum”). Per the Ross Memorandum, the Secretary’s decision was prompted by a December 12, 2017 request from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to include the question so that DOJ could utilize census block level citizenship voting age population (“CVAP”) data in order to better enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), which protects the voting rights of minority populations. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. According to the Ross Memorandum, the Census Bureau performed a comprehensive review of DOJ’s request and found “that the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about a potentially lower response rate.” Id. at 6. Shortly thereafter, on March 29, 2018, the Census Bureau submitted its report to Congress in accordance with § 141(f)(2) (the “March 2018 Report”) and indicated that the 2020 Census would include the citizenship question. ECF No. 17 ¶ 102; ECF No. 1-3 at 12. On June
6 Pursuant to the Census Act, the Secretary must, within two and three years of the census, submit to Congress “a report containing the Secretary’s determination of the subjects proposed to be included, and the types of information to be compiled, in such census.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(1),(2).
5

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 6 of 35
21, 2018, after Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint, the Secretary clarified statements made in the earlier Ross Memorandum and indicated that he began considering the citizenship question, “which other senior Administration officials had previously raised,” “[s]oon after [his] appointment as Secretary of Commerce.” ECF No. 26-1 (“Ross Supplemental Memorandum”). The Secretary clarified that he and his staff “inquired whether the Department of Justice (DOJ) would support, and if so would request, inclusion of a citizenship question as consistent with and useful for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.” Id.7
C. Alleged Impact of the Citizenship Question Plaintiffs allege that the Secretary’s justification for adding the citizenship question is a pretext for its true aim—“to press the 2020 Census into the service of [President Trump’s] antiimmigration political agenda.” ECF No. 17 ¶ 82. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that by January 31, 2017, the Trump Administration had prepared a draft Executive Order that, among other things, directed the Census Bureau to ask a citizenship question. Id. ¶ 83. Without any reference to the VRA, the Order justified the citizenship question as “fulfill[ing] several campaign promises by aligning immigration policies with the national interest” and addressing “the flow of illegal entries and visa overstays” and the “unlawful employment of aliens.” Id. Additionally, President Trump’s re-election campaign acknowledged that “President Trump [had] officially mandated that the 2020 United States Census ask people living in America whether or not they are citizens.” ECF No. 17 ¶ 89; see also id. ¶ 87. Plaintiffs further allege that the Ross Memorandum “contained no evaluation of the asserted legal or statistical foundation for the DOJ request and no independent assessment by the Commerce Department or Census Bureau of the asserted governmental benefit of adding a
7 The Ross Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum are included with the Administrative Record. See AR 1313–1320; 1321.
6

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 7 of 35
citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire.” Id. ¶ 90. Plaintiffs contend that Secretary Ross’ decision was deficient for a number of reasons: the Census Bureau previously concluded that the VRA did not require block-level CVAP data, and the ACS already provides DOJ with sufficient VRA-related data, id. ¶¶ 91, 92; the Ross Memorandum failed to identify any postMarch 2017 circumstances necessitating the question, ¶ 93; the use of a citizenship question has not been well tested, ¶¶ 94, 95; and, by the Secretary’s own explicit admission, the Census Bureau did not know, and was unable to determine, the impact such a question would have on nonresponse rates and the potential undercounting of immigrants, ¶ 98. Ultimately, Plaintiffs contend that Secretary Ross had no basis to find the citizenship question necessary to enforce the VRA or that the benefits of collecting citizenship data outweigh potential adverse effects on response rates. Id. ¶ 101 (quoting ECF No. 1-2 at 8).
Instead, Plaintiffs allege that compelling evidence, including evidence from the Census Bureau itself, makes clear that “the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of persons belonging to or sharing a household with certain demographic groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino Origin” (collectively, “Undercount Groups”). ECF No. 17 ¶ 105.8 The Undercount Groups are more likely to be suspicious about the purpose of the decennial census and the government’s use of census data than other population groups, a suspicion allegedly exacerbated by the current political environment. Id. ¶¶ 106, 108. As a result, the citizenship question is expected to “reduce participation and depress response rates among the Undercount Groups.” Id. ¶ 106; see also id. ¶ 114 (alleging that since issuance of the Ross
8 The Court interchangeably refers to this problem as a ‘disproportionate’ or ‘differential’ undercount. See Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 7 (1996) (“Some segments of the population are ‘undercounted’ to a greater degree than are others, resulting in a phenomenon termed the ‘differential undercount.’”).
7

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 8 of 35
Memorandum, Defendant Jarmin has publicly acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the inclusion of the citizenship question may disproportionally affect the Undercount Groups).
Plaintiffs further allege that these depressed response rates will result in a disproportionate undercount in their local communities—areas of the country with a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups. ECF No. 17 ¶¶ 115–124. The disproportionate undercount will, in turn, reduce the number of congressional seats expected to be apportioned to Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Nevada, id. ¶ 125, and affect the drawing of “equal population” intra-state legislative districts in Arizona, Florida, Texas, Nevada, and Maryland so as to over-populate Plaintiffs’ districts and dilute their vote. Id. ¶ 126. Additionally, the disproportionate undercount will reduce the federal government’s allocation of funding to Plaintiffs and their local communities. Id. ¶¶ 128–142. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asserting that Plaintiffs lack standing. A challenge to a plaintiff’s standing is, in effect, a challenge to the Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 475–76 (1982). Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). When a defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), “the district court is to regard the pleadings as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991)). The district court should grant the
8

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 9 of 35
Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss “only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” Id.
B. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) Defendants also move to dismiss the Amended Complaint, in part, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that Count I fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To state a claim that survives a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint, relying on only well-pled factual allegations, must state at least a “plausible claim for relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The “mere recital of elements of a cause of action, supported only by conclusory statements, is not sufficient to survive a motion made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).” Walters v. McMahen, 684 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2012). To determine whether a claim has crossed “the line from conceivable to plausible,” the Court must employ a “context-specific inquiry,” drawing on the court’s “experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679–80. When performing this inquiry, the Court accepts “all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in weighing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). The Court need not, however, accept unsupported legal allegations, Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm'rs, 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4th Cir. 1989), nor must it agree with legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, or conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events, United Black Firefighters v. Hirst, 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4th Cir. 1979); see also Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009).
9

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 10 of 35
III. DISCUSSION A. Standing “One of the essential elements of a legal case or controversy is that the plaintiff have
standing to sue.” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2416 (2018). At its “irreducible constitutional minimum,” the standing doctrine requires a plaintiff, as the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, to establish three elements: (1) a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, either actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and defendants’ challenged conduct, such that the injury is “fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant”; and (3) a likelihood that the injury suffered will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).
The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting each of the required elements of standing “in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.” Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561. “At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice,” id., so long as they plausibly identify an injury. Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262, 270 (4th Cir. 2017); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) (“it is the burden of the ‘party who seeks the exercise of jurisdiction in his favor,’ . . . ‘clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute’” (citation omitted)). “[P]laintiffs are required only to state a plausible claim that each of the standing elements is present.” Attias v. Carefirst, Inc., 865 F.3d 620, 625 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (emphasis in original). “[W]hat may perhaps be speculative at summary judgment can be plausible on a motion to dismiss,” and courts should not “recast[] ‘plausibility’ into ‘probability’” by demanding predictive certainty. Wikimedia Found. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 857
10

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 11 of 35
F.3d 193, 208–12 (4th Cir. 2017); see also District of Columbia v. Trump, 291 F. Supp. 3d 725, 738 (D. Md. 2018) (alleging injury-in-fact at the pleading stage is not akin to climbing “Mount Everest”). However, the Court does not “apply the same presumption of truth to ‘conclusory statements’ and ‘legal conclusions.’” Beck, 848 F.3d at 270.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged a concrete injury-in-fact and that, even if they have sufficiently alleged concrete injury-in-fact, it is not fairly traceable to the Defendants. The Court will address both arguments in turn.
1. Concrete Injury-in-fact The injury-in-fact requirement ensures “that the plaintiff has a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014) (quoting Clapper v. Amnesty Intern. USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1150 n.5 (2013)). “To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency, 857 F.3d 193, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted). “For an injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Id. “The purpose of the imminence requirement ‘is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative for Article III purposes.’” Id. (quoting Clapper, 133 S. Ct. at 1147). “An allegation of future injury may suffice if the threatened injury is ‘certainly impending,’ or there is a ‘substantial risk that the harm will occur.’” Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S. Ct at 2341 (quoting Clapper, 133 S. Ct. at 1150, n.5). Plaintiffs allege that they face a concrete injury in that their states and communities will be disproportionately undercounted as a result of the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Census. Plaintiffs rely on “recent ACS data” as indicating that the states and areas in which
11

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 12 of 35
Plaintiffs reside contain “a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole.” E.g., ECF No. 17 ¶ 121. As a result of living in areas with a higher percentage of individuals in the Undercount Groups, Plaintiffs claim that they will likely suffer a number of injuries. Specifically, they argue that the undercount will result in a loss of representation in the House of Representatives, as well as a loss of federal funding for their communities’ schools and roads. See generally ECF No. 17 ¶ 10 (“Voters will be denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equitable political representation based on actual population, and billions of dollars in federal funding—for education, infrastructure, health care, and countless other pressing needs—will be unlawfully misallocated.”).
Regarding Plaintiffs’ vote-dilution injury, the Supreme Court has previously held that plaintiffs possess standing in census cases where they face an “expected loss of a Representative to the United States Congress” and that this “undoubtedly satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing.” U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. at 331–32. The loss of a Representative means that Plaintiffs’ “votes will be diluted,” and faced with the loss of a Representative, the harm of vote dilution “is ‘concrete’ and ‘actual or imminent, not ‘conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’” Id. (quoting Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990)) (quotation missing in original). Thus, assuming all facts in the Amended Complaint as true, Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the Plaintiffs who reside in Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Nevada will likely lose a congressional seat as a result of the addition of the citizenship question which, pursuant to U.S. House of Representatives, satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement.
As to Plaintiffs’ remaining injury-in-fact arguments regarding the dilution of Plaintiffs’ votes within states and their loss of federal funding, a number of courts have found such claims sufficient to establish injury-in-fact. See, e.g., Carey v. Kutznick, 637 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir.
12

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 13 of 35
1980); Glavin v. Clinton, 19 F. Supp. 2d 543, 550 (E.D. Va. 1998); City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick, 503 F. Supp. 663, 672 (E.D. Pa. 1980).
In Carey, the Second Circuit reasoned that individual plaintiffs had “alleged concrete harm in the form of dilution of their votes and decreased federal funds flowing to their city and state, thus establishing their standing.” 637 F.2d at 838. Similarly, in City of Philadelphia, the District Court reasoned that plaintiffs had met the standing requirement where they alleged that Philadelphia would lose “millions of dollars in revenue-sharing aid . . . .” 503 F. Supp. at 672. The court went on to reason that:
Even if none of the named plaintiffs personally receives a dollar of state or federal aid, all enjoy the benefits yielded when the City is enabled to improve quality of life through the receipt of this money. Improved transportation, more jobs, cleaner streets however the money is spent the results benefit all. Consequently, a loss of a portion of that money is an injury suffered by all. The Court holds, therefore, that on either ground, the individual plaintiffs have alleged injury in fact sufficient to establish standing. Id. Finally, according to the Glavin court, it has been recognized “that there is a direct correlation between decennial census population counts and federal and state funding allocations,” and that “allegations of decreased federal and state funding is fairly traceable to population counts reported in the decennial census.” 19 F. Supp. 2d at 550 (citing cases). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ claims of injury are “entirely speculative” and devoid of “definitive, empirical evidence.” Specifically, Defendants argue that the Court is left to speculate about whether the citizenship question will result in a net decrease in response rate for the 2020 Census, that such a decrease would lead specific states to lose representation in Congress, and that Plaintiffs’ states will be among those states to suffer a loss of federal funding that will eventually impact Plaintiffs. Defendants’ arguments fail. In arguing that Plaintiffs have not established that there will be an undercount, Defendants proffer evidence that measures are in place to rectify any potential undercount.
13

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 14 of 35
Specifically, they claim that the 2020 Census will be the first to rely extensively on digital methods; each household will receive up to six mailings, and the enumerators will personally visit all households; and the Census Bureau will mount an extensive publicity and outreach campaign. ECF No. 24-1 at 18.
But Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that such measures would not be effective. For example, in the Amended Complaint it is alleged that in 2009, former Census Bureau Directors declared that “inclusion of a citizenship question would create ‘problems during door-to-door visits to unresponsive households, when legalized ‘head of household’ would avoid enumerators because one or more other household members are present unlawfully.’” ECF No. 17 ¶ 80. Additionally, it is alleged that in 2016, four former Census Bureau Directors referred to a reduced rate “overall.” Id. 81.9 Discovery, and potential expert testimony, may later make it clear that these efforts will suffice to eliminate any potential undercount, but Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they will not. Similarly, while Defendants dispute the factual underpinnings of Plaintiffs’ assertions that funding or representation will be impacted, at this juncture, it is sufficient that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged them, and as discussed above, courts have determined such claims to be concrete injuries-in-fact.
2. Causal Connection The parties next dispute whether Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries resulting from a potential census undercount would be “fairly traceable” to Defendants’ addition of the citizenship question. Specifically, Defendants argue that any undercount would be caused not by the
9 At oral argument, the parties differed on whether the reference to an “overall” count necessarily referenced the resulting count after all follow-up measures had been taken or could be a reference to an undercount before such measures were taken. At this juncture, the Court will interpret this in the light most favorable to the non-movant and infer that it does refer to the final count after remedial measures were attempted.
14

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 15 of 35
citizenship question, but by “third parties’ unlawful choices in failing to respond to the census . . . .” ECF No. 40 at 6.
For an injury to be “fairly traceable” to the defendant, the defendant’s actions need not be “the very last step in the chain of causation.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 168–69 (1997). While a plaintiff may not have standing where the alleged injury is solely “th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court,” Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560, “the causation element of standing is satisfied . . . where the plaintiff suffers an injury that is ‘produced by [the] determinative or coercive effect’ of the defendants’ conduct ‘upon the action of someone else.’” Lansdowne on the Potomac Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Lansdowne, LLC, 713 F.3d 187, 197 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bennett, 520 U.S. at 169).
Lansdowne is instructive. There, a homeowners’ association sued OpenBand, a network of cable providers, alleging that OpenBand had entered into an exclusivity arrangement that prevented their ability to seek services from competing providers in violation of an order of the Federal Communications Commission. Id. at 191. When the homeowners’ association investigated alternative providers, those providers expressed concern that the exclusivity provisions would prevent them from accessing the property for the purpose of providing services. Id. at 194. OpenBand argued that any injury suffered by the homeowners association was the result of the independent, intervening actions of the third party companies who refused to offer services. Id. at 197. The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument, noting that the argument ignored the reason why competing cable providers would not offer services—the exclusivity agreement entered into by OpenBand. Id. Thus, the causation element of standing was satisfied because plaintiff had suffered an injury that was produced by the “determinative or coercive
15

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 16 of 35
effect of the defendant’s conduct upon the action of someone else.” Id. (internal citations omitted).
Similarly, here, while it is true that if an undercount occurs it will occur only because private individuals choose not to respond to the census surveys, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the citizenship question will have a “determinative or coercive effect” on those individuals’ decision not to respond. Plaintiffs cite statements by former Census Bureau officials indicating that the citizenship question may cause the Census Bureau to be “perceived as an enforcement agency” which would cause respondents to “misunderstand or mistrust the census and fail or refuse to respond.” ECF No. 17 ¶ 77; see also id. ¶¶ 78–81. Plaintiffs allege that the Census Bureau’s own internal findings revealed that, in response to citizenship questions, respondents were more likely to fail to respond or falsify responses. Id. ¶¶ 109–12.
Relying on United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 138 S. Ct. 1532, 1541 (2018), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish standing by relying on a third parties’ refusal to respond to the census, as such a refusal would be a criminal violation. ECF No. 40 at 7. This case is distinguishable. In Sanchez-Gomez, pretrial detainees challenged the constitutionality of a District Court’s use of full restraints on detainees during pretrial proceedings. Two of the detainees were no longer in pretrial custody by the time their case arrived at the Supreme Court; thus, the Court considered whether their cases were moot. 138 S. Ct. at 1540. The detainees argued that their case was not moot because they would “again violate the law, be apprehended, and be returned to pretrial custody.” Id. at 1541. In rejecting this argument, the Court reasoned that it had “consistently refused to find the case or controversy requirement satisfied where, as here, the litigants simply ‘anticipate violating lawful criminal statutes.’” Id. at 1542 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496 (1974)). Thus, Sanchez-Gomez held that prisoners could
16

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 17 of 35
not challenge a policy on the grounds that they themselves were independently likely to violate a law in the future; there was no allegation that it was the challenged practice that would cause them to violate the law. Here, however, Plaintiffs allege that it is the very government act being challenged, the addition of the citizenship question, that will directly cause individuals to refuse to answer the census.
Thus, Plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the addition of the citizenship question to the 2020 Census will determinatively or coercively cause individuals to “fail or refuse to respond.” As such, they have pleaded that their alleged injuries are “fairly traceable” to the Census Bureau’s conduct. Taken together, Plaintiffs have standing.10
B. Violation of the Census Clause (Count I) Turning to Count I of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Census Clause. Pursuant to the Census Clause, “[t]he actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Defendants contend that because the Clause allows Congress to conduct the census “in such Manner” as Congress directs, the method by which the census is conducted, including the formulation of specific questions, is textually committed to Congress and therefore barred from judicial review under the political question doctrine. ECF No. 24 at 22. Alternatively, Defendants contend that even if the Secretary’s conduct is subject to judicial review, his decision to include the citizenship question does not violate the Clause.
10 The Government does not dispute that Plaintiffs’ alleged injury can be sufficiently redressed by a favorable decision here. Previous census cases have typically found that this prong of the standing requirement is met in such challenges because a “permanent injunction against the proposed [change in the census] will redress the alleged injury.” Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 332 (1999); see also Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 43–44 (D.D.C.), aff'd sub nom. Alexander v. Mineta, 531 U.S. 940, and aff'd, 531 U.S. 941 (2000) (noting that the Government had not “suggested that they would refuse to follow a decision of this court” and thus concluding that “plaintiffs satisfy the redressability prong of the standing inquiry”).
17

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 18 of 35
1. Political Question Doctrine The political question doctrine “excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch.” Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean Soc’y, 478 U.S. 221, 230 (1986). However, this is a “narrow exception” to judicial review. Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 195 (2012). Whether a case presents a non-justiciable political question depends on a number of factors, the most important of which are whether there exists a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).11 While the Court is not aware of a similar challenge to the composition of the census questionnaire, other than cases currently pending in various jurisdictions, the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that challenges under the Census Clause are justiciable, and a brief review of these cases is in order. In U.S. Dept. of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992), the Supreme Court upheld a 1941 federal statute that set forth the method by which congressional seats would be apportioned following each decennial census. In doing so, the Court held that “[a]s our previous rejection of the political question doctrine in this context should make clear, the interpretation of the apportionment provisions of the Constitution is well within the competence of the Judiciary.” Id. at 458. As the government then conceded, the “political” issue presented was not whether the
11 Also relevant is “the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962)
18

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 19 of 35
Census Clause creates the existence of a judicially enforceable right; rather, the issue was how to define the rights established under the Census Clause, a question the Court found to be justiciable. Id. at 457–58 (“In invoking the political question doctrine, a court acknowledges the possibility that a constitutional provision may not be judicially enforceable. Such a decision is of course very different from determining that specific congressional action does not violate the Constitution.”) (footnotes omitted). While Montana focused on how representatives were “apportioned among the several States” pursuant to Art. I § 2, cl. 3 and Am. XIV § 2, and not how Congress conducted an “actual Enumeration,” the Court subsequently considered the method by which the Census Bureau conducted an “actual Enumeration” in Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992).
In that case, Massachusetts challenged the reapportionment following the 1990 Census and argued that the method used by the Census Bureau to count federal employees serving overseas violated “the constitutional requirement that the apportionment of Representatives be determined by an ‘actual Enumeration’ of persons ‘in each State.’” Id. at 795. In a footnote, the Court, relying on Montana, acknowledged that the political question doctrine did not prevent it from rendering judgment. See id. at 801 n.2.
Thereafter, in Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court relied on Franklin and Montana in upholding the Census Bureau’s decision not to statistically adjust the 1990 Census results in order to correct for a differential undercount of certain racial and ethnic minority groups. The Court did not explicitly mention the political question doctrine, but its holding makes clear the Census Clause does not create a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment” to Congress such that its actions are not subject to judicial review. Even as the Court recognized that “the text of the Constitution vests Congress with virtually
19

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 20 of 35
unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial ‘actual Enumeration,’” id. at 19, it applied the following standard in its review of the Secretary’s action:
so long as the Secretary’s conduct of the census is ‘consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation,’ Franklin, 505 U.S., at 804, it is within the limits of the Constitution. In light of the Constitution's broad grant of authority to Congress, the Secretary’s decision not to adjust need bear only a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population, keeping in mind the constitutional purpose of the census. Id. at 19–20 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed that the Census Clause itself creates limits on Congress’ discretion, noting that whatever “the precise methodological limits foreseen by the Census Clause” may be, those limits are not exceeded “where all efforts have been made to reach every household, where the methods used consist not of statistical sampling but of inference, where that inference involves a tiny percent of the population, where the alternative is to make a far less accurate assessment of the population, and where consequently manipulation of the method is highly unlikely . . . .” Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 479 (2002) (holding that use of “hot deck” imputation to obtain census data was permissible). Likewise, a number of lower courts have also reviewed the legality of Census Bureau actions. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 789 F. Supp. 1179, 1181–82 (D.D.C. 1992) (reviewing challenge to Census Bureau’s decision on how to count prison inmates); State of Texas v. Mosbacher, 783 F. Supp. 308, 312 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (reviewing challenge to census methodology resulting in an undercount of persons with Hispanic origin); Carey v. Klutznick, 508 F. Supp. 404, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff’d, 637 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1980) (reviewing challenge to “manner in which the census was conducted” and Census Bureau’s failure to correct for an undercount of “hard to enumerate” persons); City of Philadelphia, 503
20

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 21 of 35
F. Supp. at 674 (reviewing challenge to statistical adjustment of census results and holding that Enumeration Clause “does not constitute the textually demonstrable commitment intended” by Baker); see also Tucker v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 958 F.2d 1411, 1415 (7th Cir. 1992) (“We have our doubts whether, as the district judge believed, the political questions doctrine is a bar to such a suit. . . . The accuracy of the decennial census is not, in any sense apparent to us, one of those questions . . .”).
Defendants attempt to distinguish the cases cited above by arguing that the Census Clause has two distinct prongs—an “actual Enumeration” prong and a “Manner” prong. Under Defendants’ interpretation, the Census Clause only requires Congress or, by extension, the Census Bureau, to conduct an actual, person-by-person headcount. The “Manner” prong leaves the “way of performing or executing” that headcount to the Census Bureau’s discretion. ECF No. 24-1 at 32. Therefore, Defendants contend that courts may review claims challenging the calculation methodology applied to raw census data but may not review pre-count information gathering functions, including the selection of census questions, because doing so implicates policy-based determinations requiring the balancing of factors such as cost, effectiveness, accuracy, and timing. Id. at 30 (“This case implicates only the [‘Manner’] question because it does not involve whom to count, how to count them, or where to count them.”).
Defendants’ interpretation of the Census Clause is unpersuasive. While one could certainly categorize the Supreme Court cases discussed above as “calculation-methodology” challenges, ECF No. 24-1 at 33 n.10, nothing in the Supreme Court’s holdings suggests that courts can review the sufficiency of the “actual Enumeration” but not the “Manner” in which the count is conducted. Put differently, reviewing the “actual Enumeration” necessarily involves looking into the “Manner” in which the count is conducted. See Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 24 (“we
21

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 22 of 35
hold that the Secretary’s decision was well within the constitutional bounds of discretion over the conduct of the census”) (emphasis added); id. at 13 (“In recent years, we have twice considered constitutional challenges to the conduct of the census.”) (emphasis added).
The “in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct” portion of the clause “suggest[s] the breadth of congressional methodological authority.” Utah, 536 U.S. at 474. It does not set forth a requirement distinct from the requirement that the Secretary conduct an “actual Enumeration.” Therefore, the standard of review set forth in Wisconsin—that the Secretary’s decision “bear[s] a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population, keeping in mind the constitutional purpose of the census”—can be applied to the way in which the Secretary collects the data just as it can be applied to the way in which the Secretary processes that data. See Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 19–20. Whether or not Congress or the Census Bureau has violated their expansive breadth of authority is, therefore, a justiciable question. See Montana, 503 U.S. at 458.
2. Failure to State a Claim Finding Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge justiciable, the Court must determine whether Defendants’ alleged conduct amounts to a violation of the Census Clause. Defendants argue that the Census Clause only requires that the “population is to be determined through a person-byperson headcount, rather than through estimates or conjecture.” ECF No. 24-1 at 39. Accordingly, because there is no allegation that the Census Bureau is estimating the enumeration, Defendants contend that there is no constitutional violation. As Defendants point out, the Census Clause provides little by way of specific requirements in directing the completion of the decennial census; rather, “[t]he text of the Constitution vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial ‘actual Enumeration.’” See Wisconsin,
22

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 23 of 35
517 U.S. at 19. This discretion clearly applies to how the Census Bureau formulates and administers the census questionnaire, and prior censuses suggest that the Secretary’s citizenship question may be permissible.
Courts have long recognized that the census accomplishes more than just a person-byperson headcount:
the decennial census is not only used for apportionment purposes. Although originally established for the sole purpose of apportioning Representatives, the decennial census has grown considerably over the past 200 years. It now serves as a linchpin of the federal statistical system by collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. at 341 (citations and internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in original); see also Legal Tender Cases, 79 U.S. 457, 536 (1870) (“Congress has repeatedly directed . . . not only an enumeration of persons but the collection of statistics respecting age, sex, and production. Who questions the power to do this?”), abrogated on other grounds by Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). Notably, the government has asked some or all respondents to identify their citizenship in varying forms since the 1820 Census, see supra I.A, so, to a certain extent, the Secretary’s inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census has the blessings of history. See Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 21 (noting “the importance of historical practice” in determining whether the Secretary’s decision not to statistically adjust the census data was constitutional). Additionally, Plaintiffs’ allegation that the citizenship question will affect the accuracy of the census does not automatically render the citizenship question unconstitutional. The Census Bureau is not obligated, nor expected, to conduct a perfectly accurate count of the population. See id. at 6 (“Although each [decennial census] was designed with the goal of accomplishing an ‘actual Enumeration’ of the population, no census is recognized as having been wholly
23

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 24 of 35
successful in achieving that goal.”). And despite efforts to continually improve the quality of the count, errors persist, resulting in a net undercount of the population; often disproportionally affecting some racial and ethnic minority groups. Id. This may be the unfortunate reality of an imperfect process.
However, even as the Census Clause contains few specific requirements, it sets forth matters of general principle, and “certain basic constitutional choices may prove relevant” in evaluating the validity of the Census Bureau’s action. See Utah, 536 U.S. at 478. “The decisions, for example, to use population rather than wealth, to tie taxes and representation together, to insist upon periodic recounts, and to take from the States the power to determine methodology all suggest a strong constitutional interest in accuracy.” Id. And the type of accuracy that most directly implicates the constitutional purpose of the census is the need for distributive accuracy. See Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 20 (“a preference for distributive accuracy (even at the expense of some numerical accuracy) would seem to follow from the constitutional purpose of the census, viz., to determine the apportionment of the Representatives among the States”).12
Therefore, it must follow that when the Census Bureau unreasonably compromises the distributive accuracy of the census, it may violate the Constitution. See id. at 19–20 (“so long as the Secretary’s conduct of the census is ‘consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation,’ it is within the limits of the Constitution” (quoting Franklin, 505 U.S. at 804)); see also Evans, 536 U.S. at 500 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (observing that “[d]ebate about apportionment and the census . . . focused for the most part on creating a standard that would limit political chicanery”).
12 The Wisconsin court described “distributive accuracy” as “getting most nearly correct the proportions of people in different areas.” Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 11.
24

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 25 of 35
As alleged, the citizenship question will reduce participation and depress response rates among the Undercount Groups, resulting in a disproportionate undercount that adversely affects Plaintiffs’ congressional apportionment, intra-state representation, and access to federally-funded programs. Furthermore, the Census Bureau allegedly ignored clear evidence that the question would lead to such an undercount. Therefore, Plaintiffs have alleged that the citizenship question unreasonably compromises the distributive accuracy of the census.
Defendants contend that “Plaintiffs’ theory, taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that the Enumeration Clause prohibits any demographic questions on the census questionnaire that may theoretically reduce response rates and cause some entirely speculative undercount.” ECF No. 24-1 at 41. Arguably, that would imply that the use of a citizenship-related question over the past 200 years was unconstitutional. But the slope is not nearly as slippery as this argument claims it to be, given that plaintiffs’ allegations give rise to notable exceptions between the claim herein and otherwise permissible inclusions of demographic questions on the decennial census. First, Plaintiffs do not allege that an undercount is merely possible, they allege that the Census Bureau disregarded evidence indicating that the citizenship question will actually lead to a disproportionate undercount of the Undercount Groups. Second, as alleged, the inclusion of other demographic questions has been well tested to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on response rates, see ECF No. 17 ¶¶ 58–65—an action not taken by the Census Bureau here. Third, the Court is not aware of any prior demographic questions that would, allegedly, be viewed by a specific segment of the population as an attempt to further an administration’s law enforcement objectives related to that population. While a nominal portion of the populace may be turned off by having to answer any demographic question, there is no reason to believe that their reluctance would disproportionally affect any specific demographic. For example, there is no basis to
25

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 26 of 35
believe that as a result of questions requesting the identification of participants’ gender, women in a particular state would be less likely to respond. A male respondent in Michigan would be no more or less likely to respond than a female respondent in New York. Thus, there would be no disruption to distributive accuracy.
Nor does the fact that this citizenship question was asked in the past foreclose Plaintiffs’ claim. Here, it is alleged that the addition of the citizenship question in the current political climate will cause an undercount of a specific population that is concentrated in specific areas, thus disturbing the distributive accuracy of the 2020 Census. Apart from merely seeking to accomplish a task beyond counting the population, as a standard demographic question would permissibly do, it is alleged that, here, the citizenship question will actively hinder the census’ primary purpose. Thus, as alleged, it cannot be said that the Census Bureau’s use of the citizenship question bears a “reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population,” Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 20, and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied.
C. Violation of the APA (Count II) Similar to its political question argument, Defendants argue that Count II is not justiciable because the selection of specific census questions is “committed to agency discretion by law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2). The APA requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” § 706(2)(A); “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity,” § 706(2)(B); “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,”
26

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 27 of 35
§ 706(2)(D).13 However, aggrieved persons are not entitled to judicial review of final agency action “to the extent that (1) statutes preclude judicial review; or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law.” § 701(a). “Since there is no statutory provision explicitly prohibiting judicial review of the Bureau’s actions, the Court must determine whether the challenged agency actions are ‘committed to agency discretion by law.’” City of Philadelphia, 503 F.Supp. at 674–75.
There is a strong presumption favoring judicial review of agency action. See Speed Mining, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Safety and Health Review Com’n, 528 F.3d 310, 316–17 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 191 (1993) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)). An action is committed to agency discretion by law “in those rare instances where statutes are drawn in such broad terms that in a given case there is no law to apply,” Speed Mining, 528 F.3d at 317 (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 410 (1971)), or when there are “no judicially manageable standards . . . for judging how and when an agency should exercise its discretion.” Id. (citing Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830 (1985)).
Defendants argue that the Census Act “contains no standards against which to assess the Secretary’s exercise of discretion, particularly with regard to a matter as fundamental as the form and content of the questionnaire itself.” ECF No. 24-1 at 36 (emphasis in original). Section 141(a) provides that:
The Secretary shall . . . take a decennial census of population . . . in such form and content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and special surveys. In connection with any such census, the Secretary is authorized to obtain such other census information as necessary.
13 Plaintiffs allege, and Defendants do not dispute, that the Secretary’s March 2018 Report including the citizenship question constitutes final agency action. ECF No. 17 ¶ 13.
27

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 28 of 35
The Supreme Court precedent cited supra has not clearly established whether the
Secretary’s acts made pursuant to the Census Act “are permitted to agency discretion by law.”
However, a majority of courts considering the issue have found that APA claims related to the
completion of the decennial census are reviewable. See District of Columbia, 789 F.Supp. at n.16
(“there is no dispute over the ability of the court to review these actions of the Census Bureau
under the [APA]. . . . almost every court that has considered the issue has held that 13 U.S.C.
§ 141 does not preclude judicial review”); City of New York v. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 713
F.Supp. 48, 53 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (“the overwhelming majority of cases considering this issue[]
have concluded that § 701(a)(2) of the APA is inapplicable to the census statute”).14 Justice
Stevens’ concurring opinion in Franklin also supports the view that APA claims related to the
completion of the decennial census are reviewable.15
Defendants point to Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) as support for their position. In
Webster, the Supreme Court found that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency’s
decision to terminate an employee was immune from judicial review because section 102(c) of
the National Security Act provided that the CIA Director could terminate an employee whenever
he “shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interests of the United States.” 486
14 A non-exhaustive list of such cases includes: Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834, 838–39 (2d Cir. 1980); City of Willacoochee, Ga. v. Baldrige, 556 F.Supp. 551, 555 (S.D. Ga. 1983); Young v. Klutznick, 497 F.Supp. 1318, 1335 (E.D. Mich. 1980), rev'd on other grounds, 652 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 939 (1982); City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick, 503 F.Supp. 663, 674–75 (E.D. Pa. 1980); City of Camden v. Plotkin, 466 F.Supp. 44, 52 (D.N.J. 1978); Borough of Bethel Park v. Stans, 319 F.Supp. 971 (W.D. Pa. 1970), aff’d, 449 F.2d 575 (3d. Cir. 1971); West End Neighborhood Corp. v. Stans, 312 F.Supp. 1066, 1068 (D.D.C. 1970). Additionally, in connection with a criminal matter against a defendant that refused to answer specific census questions, one court has found that “in the absence of a clear showing . . . that the Secretary’s exercise of discretion [in framing the census question] was irrational, arbitrary, or capricious, his actions will not be disturbed.” United States v. Little, 321 F.Supp. 388, 391 (D. Del. 1971). 15 Writing for the majority, Justice O’Connor held, in Part IV of the opinion, that the plaintiff’s challenge to the Secretary’s allocation of overseas federal employees to their designated home state of record was not reviewable under the APA because “the final action complained of is that of the President, and the President is not an agency within the meaning of the [APA].” See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 796 (1992). Justice Stevens disagreed and considered the APA claim on the merits. 505 U.S. at 807 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). After concluding that the decision was final agency action, Justice Stevens found that the action was not “committed to agency discretion by law.”
28

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 29 of 35
U.S. at 600 (citing 50 U.S.C. § 403(c)). There, the Supreme Court found that the language “deem . . . advisable” provided no meaningful standard of review, id., which Defendants contend is analogous to the Secretary’s broad grant of statutory discretion provided under the Census Act. However, Defendants’ argument was squarely and persuasively rejected in Justice Stevens’ concurrence in Franklin, who found that “it is difficult to imagine two statutory schemes more dissimilar than the National Security Act and the Census Act” and noted that the Census Act presents “no indication that Congress intended the Secretary’s own mental processes, rather than other more objective factors, to provide the standard for gauging the Secretary’s exercise of discretion.” 505 U.S. at 817–18 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). “While the operations of a secret intelligence agency may provide an exception to the norm of reviewability, the taking of the census does not.” Id. at 818 (footnote omitted). Furthermore, Justice Stevens recognized that the Supreme Court has limited the 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2) exception to judicial review to national security cases or the executive branch’s refusal to pursue enforcement actions, id. at 818–19, whereas the “reviewability of decisions relating to the conduct of the census bolsters public confidence in the integrity of the process and helps strengthen this mainstay of our democracy.” Id. at 818; see also City of New York, 713 F.Supp. at 53 (distinguishing Webster to find the Secretary’s conduct reviewable under the Census Act).
As discussed herein, supra II.B.1, the Constitution imparts a judiciable standard on Congress when conducting an ‘actual Enumeration’—it must bear “a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin, 517 U.S. at 18–19. And that standard is, in essence, what Congress has passed along to the Secretary. See 13 U.S.C.A. § 141 Note; PL 105-119, November 26, 1997, HR 2267, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, 11 Stat 2440,
29

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 30 of 35
Section 209(a)(6) (“it is essential that the decennial enumeration of the population be as accurate as possible, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States”); see also Franklin, 505 U.S. at 819–20 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (finding law to apply because the “statutory command also embodies a duty to conduct a census that is accurate and that fairly accounts for the crucial representational rights that depend on the census and the apportionment”). Contrary to Defendants’ argument that Wisconsin grants “virtually unlimited discretion” to the political branches such that the Secretary’s exercise of that discretion is not subject to judicial review, ECF No. 24-1 at 37, Wisconsin does not suggest that the Secretary’s discretion is boundless. “To hold that the agency charged with its tabulation is not subject to judicial review is to hold that the Bureau is free to adopt any numbers, regardless of bias, manipulation, fraud or similarly grave abuse, which is exactly the type of conduct and temptation the Framers wished to avoid by entrusting the census to the federal government. This cannot be.” City of Philadelphia, 503 F. Supp. at 667; see also Carey, 637 F.2d at 838–39 (“[plaintiffs] allege an impairment of their ‘right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment’ . . . a matter which cannot, of course, be foreclosed from judicial review by operation of the Administrative Procedure Act”) (citations omitted).
Because the census is not committed to agency discretion by law, the standard of review set forth in § 706(a)(2) can be applied to the Secretary’s decision to add the citizenship question. Under such a standard, the Court will not review the Secretary’s decision de novo; rather, the Court will only consider whether there was a rational basis for the Secretary’s action or whether it was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. See District of Columbia, 789 F. Supp. at 1188; see also City of Philadelphia, 503 F. Supp. at 667 (“So, while the Bureau may not fulfill
30

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 31 of 35
its duty arbitrarily, capriciously or fraudulently, it nevertheless should be afforded wide latitude to select its methods, techniques and by those means to arrive at its own result.”).16
Alternatively, even if the Census Bureau’s decision to add the citizenship question is “committed to agency discretion by law,” the Court may still review it “if there is a claim that the agency has violated constitutional, statutory, regulatory or other restrictions.” Garcia v. Neagle, 660 F.2d 983, 988 (4th Cir. 1981). This exception is normally reserved to allow courts to consider the legality of a category of agency action, not the legality of a specific action. See id. (finding that the district court could not review the Parole Commission’s substantive decision on a presumptive parole date under the Parole Act but could review a claim that Parole Commission’s guidelines themselves violated the Parole Act). However, the Court may still hear a claim that a decision, otherwise committed to the agency’s discretion by law, rested on “[political] considerations that Congress could not have intended to make relevant.” See Electricities of North Carolina, Inc. v. Southeastern Power Admin., 774 F.2d 1262, 1267 (4th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); see also id. (noting, for example, that “an agency decision that violates a statutory or constitutional command or is prompted by a bribe is not immune from judicial review even when a lawful exercise of an agency’s discretion has that immunity” (citing Heckler, 470 U.S. at 839 (Brennan, J., concurring))). And that is exactly what Plaintiffs allege herein—that the Secretary’s action was not based upon a desire to obtain either an accurate census headcount or citizenship data necessary to better enforce the VRA but rather “a partisan
16 Plaintiffs allege that in addition to its obligations under the Census Clause and Census Act, the Secretary’s decision violated a number of statutory and regulatory requirements established to ensure that the Census Bureau provides accurate and reliable statistical data as set forth in the Paperwork Reduction Act, Information Quality Act, Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy Directives, and Census Bureau Statistical Quality Standards. See ECF No. 17 ¶¶49–61. Because Plaintiffs’ APA claim is justiciable, the Court need not determine whether Plaintiffs have adequately alleged a violation of any of these specific statutory or regulatory requirements at this time. Such an evaluation goes to the merits of Count II, which is not challenged herein.
31

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 32 of 35
act aimed at advancing the Trump Administration’s anti-immigration political agenda.” ECF No. 17 ¶ 9; see also id. ¶¶ 82–89. Therefore, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Count II will be denied.
D. Additional Discovery Having denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court must next determine to what fact discovery Plaintiffs are entitled. In a letter submitted to the Court on July 13, 2018, Plaintiffs request “the same discovery that Defendants were recently ordered to provide in two related actions, pending in the Southern District of New York, that likewise challenge Defendants’ addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire” and are “prepared to coordinate discovery efforts with the plaintiffs in the New York Cases, so as not to subject Defendants to cumulative or duplicative requests.” ECF No. 43 at 1. In those actions, “the court authorized plaintiffs to obtain fact discovery from the Department of Commerce and [DOJ], including ten depositions of fact witnesses, and authorized the parties to engage in expert discovery.” Id. (citing State of New York, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al., Case No. 18-2921 (S.D.N.Y.) and New York Immigration Coalition, et al. v. United States Department of Commerce, et al., Case No. 18-5025 (S.D.N.Y.) (collectively, the “New York Cases”). Generally, “claims brought under the APA are adjudicated without a trial or discovery, on the basis of an existing administrative record . . . .” Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642, 660 (D. Md. 2007) (citing Citizens for the Scenic Severn River Bridge, Inc. v. Skinner, 802 F. Supp. 1325, 1332 (D. Md. 1991), aff'd, 1992 WL 180138, (4th Cir. July 29, 1992)). In this context, “review of the administrative record is primarily a legal question . . . .” Skinner, 802 F. Supp. at 1332. In APA cases, “the agency is entitled to a strong presumption of regularity that it properly designated the administrative
32

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 33 of 35
record.” Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass’n, Inc. v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. ELH-16-1015, 2017 WL 3189446, at *12 (D. Md. July 27, 2017). There is a “strong presumption against general discovery into administrative proceedings” that is “born out of the objective of preserving the integrity and independence of the administrative process.” NVE, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 436 F.3d 182, 195 (3d Cir. 2006); see also Tafas v. Dudas, 530 F. Supp. 2d 786, 794 (E.D. Va. 2008) (“Because judicial review of agency action is generally limited to the administrative record, discovery is typically not permitted.”).
Courts permit parties to seek discovery in APA claims where the plaintiffs “contend[] the record was incomplete” or where they “seek to demonstrate bad faith, bias, or improper behavior on the part of the agency.” Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass’n Inc., 2017 WL 3189446, at *18; see also Tafas, 530 F. Supp. 2d at 797. However, mere allegations of “bad faith” are inadequate to overcome the presumption that government officials have acted “properly and in good faith.” Mullins v. U.S. Dept. of Energy, 50 F.3d 990, 993 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Instead, to obtain discovery beyond the administrative record on the basis of bad faith, there must be a “strong preliminary showing” of impropriety. Nat'l Nutritional Foods Assoc. v. Food & Drug Admin., 491 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1974); see also Friends of the Shawangunks, Inc. v. Watt, 97 F.R.D. 663, 667–68 (N.D.N.Y. 1983).
Here, Plaintiffs have made a strong preliminary showing that Defendants have acted in bad faith, and that Defendants’ stated reason for adding the citizenship question—to further enforce the VRA—was pretextual. In March of 2018, Secretary Ross repeatedly stated publicly and privately that he was considering reinstating the citizenship question in response to a December 12, 2017 letter from DOJ requesting the reinstatement of the question to assist in the enforcement of the VRA. ECF No. 17 ¶ 85. In addition to the Ross Memorandum, at a March 22,
33

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 34 of 35
2018 House Ways and Means Committee Hearing, Secretary Ross testified that the citizenship question was being considered because “the Department of Justice . . . initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question.” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross testifies at March 22 House Ways and Means Committee Hearing, C-SPAN (March 22, 2018), https://www.cspan.org/video/?c4736903/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-testifies-march-22-house-waysmeans-committee-hearing (last accessed July 30, 2018).17
Documents contained in the Administrative Record, including the supplemental materials provided by Defendants on July 25, 2018, paint a different picture, however, and arguably suggest that (1) the addition of the citizenship question was prompted by senior administration officials and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach; and (2) the “request” from DOJ was in fact manufactured by senior Department of Commerce officials as a pretextual reason for reinstating the citizenship question. See AR 763-64, 3699, 3710.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing of bad faith on the part of Defendants. The Administrative Record suggests that the citizenship question was an answer in search of a problem. There is evidence indicating that the Secretary and other senior administration or campaign officials were determined to include the citizenship question in the 2020 Census and sought out DOJ to provide a legally-defensible reason to do so. All of this appears to be at odds with the Secretary’s public explanation for his decision. Such conduct provides sufficient evidence of bad faith to warrant additional discovery, and the Court grants
17 The Court may take judicial notice of facts that can be “accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Wireless Buybacks, LLC v. Hanover Am. Ins. Co., 223 F. Supp. 3d 443, 451 (D. Md. 2016) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). The Court may take judicial notice on its own. Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1). Secretary Ross’ public congressional testimony was televised on C-Span, and saved on their website. Thus, the Court takes judicial notice of the Secretary’s testimony. This testimony was also referenced in the July 3, 2018 hearing transcript for the New York Cases provided by Plaintiffs. ECF No 43 at 68.
34

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 48 Filed 08/22/18 Page 35 of 35

Plaintiffs’ request that they be given the same discovery as has been ordered in the New York Cases. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, shall be denied, and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Discovery, ECF No 43, shall be granted. A separate Order follows.

Dated: August 22 , 2018

/s/ GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge

35

 
 Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Southern Division

ROBYN KRAVITZ, et al., Plaintiffs,

*
* Case No.: GJH-18-1041
*

v.

*

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF * COMMERCE, et al.,
* Defendants.
*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
LA UNIÓN DEL PUEBLO ENTERO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

*

Case No.: GJH-18-1570

v.

*

WILBUR ROSS, et al.,

*

Defendants.

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs in two related cases, Kravitz et al. v. United States Dep’t of Commerce et al., 18-1041 and LUPE et al. v. Ross et al., 18-1570, challenge the U.S. Census Bureau’s decision to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Plaintiffs contend that the addition of a

1

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 2 of 20
citizenship question violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Constitution.1
The LUPE Plaintiffs also allege that the question was added as part of a conspiracy to violate
their civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985. The Defendants moved for summary judgment
with respect to all claims asserted against them by both the Kravitz and LUPE Plaintiffs. ECF
Nos. 67 (18-1041) and 82 (18-1570).2 After a hearing, ECF No. 79 (18-1041), the Court entered
an order on December 19, 2018, denying Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and
permitting the parties to present evidence outside the administrative record at trial, ECF No. 80
(18-1041). This Memorandum Opinion explains that December 19, 2018 order and addresses the
Kravitz Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 71 (18-1041),
which is currently pending before the Court.
1 The Kravitiz Individual named Plaintiffs are: Diana Alexander (Houston, Texas); Lauren Rachel Berman (Dallas, Texas); Sarah Bryan (Edinburg, Texas); Alejandro Chavez (Phoenix Arizona); Virginia Garcia (Laredo, Texas); Michael Kagan (Las Vegas, Nevada); Robyn Kravitz (District Heights, Maryland); Michael Kravitz (District Heights, Maryland); Yamile Labori (West Palm Beach, Florida); Lazara Yoelvis Magadan (Miami, Florida); Richard McCune (Nogales, Arizona); Jose Moreno (Somerton, Arizona); Catherine Nwosu (Langley Park, Maryland); Nnabugwu Nwosu (Langley Park, Maryland); Linda Rivas (El Paso, Texas); T. Carter Ross (Hyattsville, Maryland); Martha Sanchez (McAllen, Texas); Sonia Casarez Shafer (Pharr, Texas); and Joanne Wilson (Bowie, Maryland). The LUPE Individual named Plaintiffs are: Juanita Valdez-Cox (Texas), Gene Wu (Texas), Mia Gregerson (Washington), Cindy Ryu (Washington), Sharon Tomiko Santos (Washington), Raj Mukherji (New Jersey), OJ Semans (South Dakota). The LUPE Organizational named Plaintiffs are: La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), Texas Senate Hispanic Caucus, Texas House of Representatives Mexican American Legislative Caucus, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, California Latino Legislative Caucus, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, Dolores Huerta Foundation, Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, Somos Un Pueblo Unido, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, Promise Arizona, El Pueblo, Inc., Maryland Legislative Latino Caucus, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Chicago, Asia Services in Action, Inc., Minkwon Center for Community Action Inc., Chelsea Collaborative, Chicanos por La Causa, Latino Community Fund of Washington, Arizona Legislative Caucus, California Asian Pacific Islander, Legislative Caucus, California Legislative Black Caucus, Oca-Greater Houston, Friendly House, Four Directions, Inc. 2 The named Defendants in the Kravitz case are the United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau, and the following officials sued in their official capacity: Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary of Commerce (the “Secretary”), Karen Dunn Kelley, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, Ron Jarmin, Director of the Census Bureau, and Enrique Lamas, Deputy Director of the Census Bureau. The named Defendants in the LUPE case are Wilbur L. Ross in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Ron Jarmin in his official capacity as Director of the Census Bureau, the United States Department of Commerce, and the United States Census Bureau.
2

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 3 of 20
I. BACKGROUND The factual background, as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Complaints, is set forth in the
Memorandum Opinions issued supporting the Court’s Orders Denying Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. ECF No. 48 (18-1041); ECF No. 80 (18-1570). For efficiency sake, the Court in this Opinion will only highlight facts supported by record evidence that bare on the question of whether there are genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Summary judgment is proper if there are no issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Summary judgment is often an appropriate mechanism for deciding claims arising under the APA. Audubon Naturalist Soc’y of The Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642, 660 (D. Md. 2007). However, summary judgment will be inappropriate where resolution of a claim requires the fact-finder to make credibility determinations or inferences in favor of the moving party. See Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th Cir. 2002) (courts must review summary judgment motions “without weighing the evidence or assessing the witnesses’ credibility”); see also Buffalo Cent. Terminal v. United States, 886 F. Supp. 1031, 1047–48 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (denying summary judgment on an APA claim because of credibility issues related to bad faith and pretext).
3

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 4 of 20
III. DISCUSSION In its Motions for Summary Judgment, Defendants argued that Plaintiffs lack standing,
that the Court should not review evidence outside the administrative record to evaluate Plaintiffs’ APA claims, and that, even considering extra-record evidence, no genuine disputes of material fact exist on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants also oppose the Kravitz Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint because they allege Plaintiffs acted with dilatory motive. Each of these arguments are addressed below.
A. Standing The Article III standing doctrine requires a plaintiff, as the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, to establish three elements at trial: (1) a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact, either actual or imminent; (2) a causal connection between the injury and defendants’ challenged conduct, such that the injury is “fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant”; and (3) a likelihood that the injury suffered will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61 (1992); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016). At the summary judgment stage, Plaintiffs must “set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts” that support a finding of standing, which the Court will view in the light most favorable to the non-movant, but which may be challenged at trial. 504 U.S. at 561. This Court previously concluded that Plaintiffs’ Complaints included sufficient factual allegations for the Individual and Organizational Plaintiffs to meet the requirements of standing. ECF No. 48 (18-1041) at 10–17; ECF No. 80 (18-1570) at 9–13. Now, the Individual Plaintiffs have supported their factual allegations—that a citizenship question is substantially likely to lead to a disproportionate undercount, harming Plaintiffs’ communities by reducing their political
4

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 5 of 20
power and federal funding—with evidence. Similarly, the Organizational Plaintiffs have introduced sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to them as the non-movant, to support their standing allegations.
1. Concrete injury-in-fact To establish standing’s injury-in-fact element, a plaintiff must show it “has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury” as a result of the challenged action. Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1552 (quotation omitted). A plaintiff’s injury or threat of injury must be “concrete and particularized,” not conjectural or hypothetical. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. If standing is based upon an alleged future injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate a substantial risk the harm will occur. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 409 (2013).
a. Injury to the Individual Plaintiffs The Kravitiz Individual Plaintiffs point to evidence that a citizenship question will cause a disproportional undercount, harming their communities because they live in areas with a higher percentage of those likely to be undercounted. By a conservative estimate the citizenship question will reduce response rates to the 2020 Census among households with a noncitizen by 5.1 percentage points, relative to households with only U.S. citizens. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 774. Further, there is evidence that a citizenship question will cause a decline in responses by Hispanic households. Id. at 629, 630, 724–25, 745; see also ECF No. 70-6 (18-1041) at 36, 75– 76; ECF No. 70-1 (18-1041) at 8, 43. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Nancy Mathiowetz explains that a citizenship question is likely to lead to so-called roster omissions where, fearing the consequences of providing sensitive information about noncitizen household members, households respond to the Census questionnaire but conceal individual members. ECF No. 70-6 (18-1041) at 34, 73. Specifically, Dr. Mathiowetz writes: “[i]n light of the empirical evidence
5

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 6 of 20
concerning rostering errors, it is reasonable to estimate that rostering errors motivated by the
addition of the citizenship question will be on the order of five percent and these rostering errors
will impact both households with noncitizens as well as households with Hispanic members.” Id. at 73.3
Defendants’ argument that corrective measures will undisputedly remedy an undercount,
ECF No. 67-1 (18-1041) at 16–18, is unconvincing at this stage. These corrective measures
include non-response follow up (NRFU) with households that do not initially respond to the
Census, attempts to contact a nearby proxy (i.e. neighbor or building manager), and use of
administrative records to supplement data where households are nonresponsive. ECF No. 67-1
(18-1041) at 15–18. However, at the very least, it is disputed whether NRFU efforts will be
successful because “[t]hose refusing to self-respond due to the citizenship question are
particularly likely to refuse to respond in NRFU as well,” ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 652, and
NRFU cannot remedy expected roster omissions, id. at 862. Individuals choosing not to respond
to the Census out of fear are not likely to be reassured by someone intrusively showing up at
their homes. See id. at 652.
Defendants next argument, that the undisputed facts show an alleged undercount would
not dilute Plaintiffs’ votes or affect their communities’ federal funding, is also flawed. To the
contrary, evidence exists that the Kravitz Individual Plaintiffs will be harmed by a differential
3 The Defendants’ argument that the Court should disregard this estimate as unreliable is unconvincing. ECF No. 79 (18-1041) at 25. Dr. Mathiowetz’s conclusion is consistent with deposition testimony by Defendants’ expert Dr. Abowd that a citizenship question will cause at least an incremental increase in the number of households that respond to the census but do not provide a response for every member of the household. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 861. That consistency suggests that Dr. Mathiowetz’s estimate should not be dismissed as plainly unreliable. Further, even if Dr. Mathiowetz’s five percent estimate were excluded as evidence, the data she considered to arrive at this conclusion would not be. Thus, at the summary judgment stage, where evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, Defendants cannot defeat the showing that roster omissions are likely to occur at a potentially significant rate. To be sure, a dispute may exist about the magnitude of the problem, but that dispute can only be resolved through the weighing of evidence—a step that the Court is precluded from taking at the summary judgment stage.
6

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 7 of 20
undercount through vote dilution and loss of federal funding. E.g., ECF No. 70-2 (18-1041) at 12; ECF No. 70-3 (18-1041) at 11. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to an expert opinion that a differential undercount of noncitizens and Hispanics will lead to vote dilution from malapportionment of congressional seats in California, Texas, and Arizona. ECF No. 70-2 (181041) at 11. Plaintiffs’ expert found that a disproportionate undercount will result in vote dilution from intra-state redistricting because states use Census data to draw districts of equal population. Id. at 13. Further, Plaintiffs’ experts opine that a disproportionate undercount will result in a loss of Medicaid, transportation, and Title I funding to Plaintiffs’ communities. See ECF No. 70-5 (18-1041) at 6, 12, 14–15; ECF No. 70-7 (18-1041) at 5–6, 11–14.
Because evidence exists to support the Kravitz Plaintiffs’ claim that a citizenship question will lead to a disproportionate undercount, vote dilution, and loss of funding, Defendants in that case are not entitled to summary judgment on standing’s injury-in-fact element. Further, the LUPE Individual Plaintiffs point to essentially the same evidence discussed above to establish a substantial risk of a disproportionate undercount, differential vote dilution, and funding losses. See ECF No. 85 at 11–17. Thus, the LUPE Individual Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that genuine disputes of material fact remain as to standing’s injury requirement.
b. Injury to the Organizational Plaintiffs Although “the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement,” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n. 2 (2006), the LUPE Organizational Plaintiffs have also introduced evidence that they or their members will sustain a direct injury because of a citizenship question, see e.g., ECF No. 82-2 (18-1570) ¶¶ 61–62 & n. 52; ECF No. 85-9 (18-1570) ¶¶ 4, 10 & 12–15. An organizational plaintiff may establish standing’s injury-in-fact element under the representational
7

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 8 of 20
standing doctrine by showing that its members have sustained an injury. Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-Nat’l Capital Park & Planning Comm’n, 874 F.3d 195, 203–04 (4th Cir. 2017). Alternatively, organizations may establish associational standing injuries by showing “(1) frustration of its organizational mission; and (2) diversion of its resources” to mitigate the effects of the challenged action. Smith v. Pac. Properties & Dev. Corp., 358 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363, 379 (1982).
The Census Bureau relies on “Trusted Voices”—organizations that help the Bureau to reach communities that are typically reluctant to respond to the Census. ECF No. 82-2 (18-1570) ¶¶ 61–62 & n. 62. Defendants’ expert Dr. Abowd confirmed that the Census Bureau will rely more heavily on these Trusted Voices, including some of the LUPE Organizational Plaintiffs, because a citizenship question will make traditionally hard-to-count populations even more reluctant to respond to the Census. Id. Plaintiffs also present evidence that several Organizational Plaintiffs have already begun or will imminently be forced to divert resources to help the communities they serve understand that being included in the final census count is critical. See, e.g., ECF No. 85-9 (18-1570) ¶¶ 4, 10 & 12–15; ECF No. 85-10 (18-1570) ¶¶ 3–4, 6–11; ECF No. 85-11 (18-1570) ¶¶ 3, 11–16; ECF No. 85-12 (18-1570) ¶¶ 3–4, 8, 10–11 & 13–14; ECF No. 85-13 18 (18-1570) ¶¶ 3, 11–13; ECF No. 85-14 (18-1570) ¶¶ 3–4, 6–7, 9–12.
For example, according to the Executive Director of LUPE, the organization began its Census outreach and advocacy at least a year early. ECF No. 85-9 ¶ 12. The organization’s “mission is to build strong, healthy communities in the Texas Rio Grande Valley through community organizing and civic engagement,” and it carries out this mission through “knowyour-rights discussions and membership meetings,” “issue-focused advocacy,” connecting “its members to social services,” “Census outreach,” and “voter registration, education, and non-
8

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 9 of 20
partisan get-out-the-vote campaigns.” Id. ¶ 5. According to the Executive Director, many LUPE members will be harmed by a citizenship question because an undercount of immigrant communities in Texas will diminish their members’ political power relative to others in the state and country. Id. ¶ 6. Ultimately a disproportionate undercount would harm LUPE’s mission by diluting the political power of the communities that LUPE seeks to organize and civically engage. Id. Thus, in response to this threat, LUPE is diverting financial and staffing resources from helping low-income families access social, economic, and legal services to enhancing its Census outreach efforts. Id. ¶¶ 12–15.
This evidence—typical of the support provided by the Organizational Plaintiffs—is sufficient, at this stage, to establish the injuries required under either the representational or associational theories of standing. Accordingly, the Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claims based on a failure to establish an injury-in-fact.
2. Causation and Redressability Defendants argue that while any depressed response rates may be traceable to the current political climate, they could not specifically be traced to the addition of a citizenship question. ECF No. 67-1 (18-1041). But record evidence creates a dispute of fact as to this claim. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 862. Despite Defendants’ contention that any respondent who is reluctant to answer a citizenship question will also be reluctant to respond to the Census if a citizenship question is not included, the Census Bureau’s study shows that a citizenship question is likely to further depress response rates among non-citizens and their relatives. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 738, 774. Defendants have also argued that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are not traceable to a citizenship question because for the injuries to occur, state governments, localities, and schools
9

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 10 of 20
must “make their own independent decisions about funding” that leave Plaintiffs’ communities with less than they would otherwise enjoy. ECF No. 79 (18-1041) at 35. This argument that third-party decisions might prevent some of Plaintiffs’ injuries is unavailing. First, it is purely speculative. The Defendants do not point to any record evidence that suggests third parties will remedy the anticipated harms. Further, even if third parties could resolve Plaintiffs’ loss-offunding concerns, they cannot address the malapportionment of congressional seats that will occur.
In sum, Plaintiffs have set forth sufficient evidence to support a finding of standing and therefore defeat Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue.
B. Enumeration Clause Claims4 Moving to Defendants’ request for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims that the addition of a citizenship question violates the Enumeration Clause challenges, the Court considers whether evidence supports Plaintiffs’ position that a citizenship question would unreasonably compromise the distributive accuracy of the census. Kravitz v. United States Dep’t of Commerce, No. GJH-18-1041, 2018 WL 4005229, *13 (D. Md. August 22, 2018) (citing Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 19–20 (1996)). For the same reasons that issues of material fact remain regarding Plaintiffs’ Article III standing, Plaintiffs’ Enumeration Clause claims will survive summary judgment. As previously discussed, evidence exists to support the conclusion that a citizenship question will lead to a disproportionate undercount, compromising the distributive accuracy of the census. E.g., ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 629, 630, 724, 745; see also ECF No. 70-6 (18-1041) at 36, 75–76; ECF No. 70-1 (18-1041) ¶ 18, 85.
4 Because there is substantial overlap between the arguments and evidence presented by the Kravitz and LUPE Plaintiffs in support of their Enumeration Clause and APA claims, the Court treats Plaintiffs arguments jointly in Section B and C and cites to the Kravitz Plaintiffs’ docket entries.
10

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 11 of 20
Defendants argue that even to the extent a differential undercount will result, this inaccurate enumeration will not unreasonably compromise the Census’s distributive accuracy. However, this argument is unconvincing because Plaintiffs have introduced evidence that the citizenship question does not bear “a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 19 (1996). Evidence supports a finding that there is no genuine need for the data the DOJ purportedly seeks, ECF No. 70-4 (18-1041) at 5–6, and that the Census Bureau believes a citizenship question will not only have a “negative impact on voluntary cooperation with the census” but also will result in “poorer quality” data for DOJ’s purposes “than would be available through administrative records,” ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 609.
In light of Plaintiffs’ evidence that a citizenship question will impact the distributive accuracy of the final enumeration for no reasonable purpose, there is a material dispute of fact regarding whether the decision to add a citizenship question violates the Enumeration Clause, and Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on these claims.
C. APA Claims5 As a preliminary matter, Defendants argue that the Court may not consider evidence outside the administrative record when reviewing Plaintiffs’ APA claims even though the Court previously ruled that Plaintiffs were entitled to limited extra-record discovery. ECF No. 48 (181041) at 33; ECF No. 80 (18-1570) at 24. Ultimately, it is not necessary for the Court to decide whether extra-record evidence is admissible in order to determine if summary judgment is appropriate because the Administrative Record alone creates genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the decision to include the citizenship question was arbitrary and capricious.
5 The CM/ECF citations in this section are to docket entries in the Kravitz (18-1041) case and are all references to the Administrative Record.
11

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 12 of 20
Nonetheless, as the Court ordered on December 19, 2018, the parties will be permitted to present evidence outside of the administrative record at trial, and the Defendants will be permitted to argue at the close of trial that such evidence should not be considered in the Court’s final decision. ECF No. 80 (18-1041).
Turning to the merits of Plaintiffs’ APA claims, Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ decision was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not lawful in violation of § 706(2)(A) and made “without observance of procedure required by law” in violation of § 706(2)(D). Under 5 U.S.C § 706(2)(A) of the APA, final agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” must be held unlawful and set aside. 5 U.S.C. § 706(a). Agency action is arbitrary and capricious “if the agency has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider, entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise.” Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
The Administrative Record suggests that Secretary Ross’s stated reasoning and factual assumptions ran counter to all the Census Bureau’s unvarnished analysis and expert advice and was based instead on manufactured support created to mask an impermissible, predetermined political motivation. Compare, for example, the Secretary’s inaccurate conclusion that “no one provided evidence that there are residents who would respond accurately to a decennial census that did not contain a citizenship question but would not respond if it did,” ECF No. 70 (181041) at 689, with the Census Bureau’s unwavering position that a citizenship question would lead to a decline in self-response among noncitizen households, id. at 629–30. The contradictions
12

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 13 of 20
between the evidence before the Secretary and his proffered explanation do not end there. Compare id. at 689 (Secretary concluding that “Alternative D”—a proposal he designed to combine a citizenship question addition with administrative records—would maximize accuracy and “the Census Bureau’s ability to match the decennial census responses with administrative records”) with id. at 652–53 (Census Bureau’s analysis that Alternative D would reduce Bureau’s ability to match data with administrative records and would cause further inaccuracies); Compare id. at 686 (Secretary’s assertion that the citizenship question had been “well tested” based on its inclusion in the American Community Survey (ACS)) with id. at 630–31 (the Census Bureau’s conclusion that a significant percent of ACS respondents may be providing inaccurate answers to the ACS citizenship question). Taken together, this Administrative Record evidence suggests the Secretary’s decision was not “the product of agency expertise.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43.
Administrative Record evidence also supports a finding that the agency “relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider.” Id. Specifically, the Record suggests that the Secretary relied on improper political influence as opposed to views on how best to obtain an accurate enumeration. Months before the Secretary solicited DOJ to request citizenship data and the DOJ ultimately submitted that request, administration officials appear to have been in communication about adding a citizenship question for politically-motivated reasons different from those reflected in the Secretary’s official memoranda. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 500–02, 582, 586–87. On March 10, 2017, Director of Policy and Strategic Planning Earl Comstock sent Secretary Ross an email with the subject line “Your Question on the Census” that alerted Ross that “all people (citizens and noncitizens)” are counted in the Census and included a 2010 opinion article titled “the Pitfalls of Counting Illegal Immigrants.” Id. at 500–01. Comstock
13

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 14 of 20
highlighted for Ross that “[n]o major government survey, including the decennial census . . . asks Americans about their citizenship status” and that “[m]any more foreign-born residents were counted in 2000 than was expected based on annual estimates produced by the bureau.” Id. This email, along with other evidence, at least raises a genuine dispute regarding whether the Secretary was interested in a citizenship question to depress response rates by non-citizens rather than to obtain an accurate enumeration of the population or even to support a DOJ request to assist in enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. Secretary Ross’s communications with Kris Kobach about adding a citizenship question further indicates that the Secretary’s true motive may have been unrelated to the DOJ’s request. Id. at 582, 586–87. Specifically, Mr. Kobach advised the Secretary to address the “problem” that “aliens who do not actually ‘reside’ in the United States are still counted for congressional apportionment purposes.” Id. at 587.6 Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Mr. Kobach was suggesting that a citizenship question be added to reduce the political power of individuals who are intended to be counted in an accurate enumeration. The Secretary launched his campaign to add a citizenship question and to find a permissible reason for such action around the same time that he communicated with Mr. Kobach about the Census. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 586–87, 694
Defendants point to the DOJ’s request, which Secretary Ross solicited, as Administrative Record evidence that purportedly favors the Secretary’s decision. ECF No. 67-1 (18-1041) at 25–26. However, there is, at the very least, a dispute as to whether any evidence supports the notion that a citizenship question would be an effective method for collecting the data that DOJ requested. Further, even if the Court ultimately considers the DOJ request to be support for the Secretary’s decision, at this stage, it only shows that Plaintiffs and Defendants have warring
6 Notably, the subject line of Mr. Kobach’s email to the Secretary reads “Follow up on our phone call,” suggesting prior communication on this topic. ECF No. 70 (18-1041) at 587.
14

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 15 of 20
evidence that support different conclusions about whether the Secretary’s decision and reasoning was permissible.
To support a finding that Defendants’ decision violated §706(2)(A) as “otherwise not in accordance with law,” Plaintiffs also point to evidence that the citizenship question was added despite no new circumstance necessitating the Secretary’s decision contrary to 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)’s congressional reporting instructions. Per § 141(f)(2), the Secretary of Commerce must submit to Congress “not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date, a report containing the Secretary's determination of the questions proposed to be included in such census.” § 141(f)(2). If, after submission of this report, the Secretary “finds new circumstances exist which necessitate that the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in reports” be modified, he or she must submit a new report describing these modifications. § 141(f)(3). Although congressional reporting requirements such as § 141(f) are typically not judicially reviewable, see e.g., Guerrero v. Clinton, 157 F.3d 1190, 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), the Court may consider the lack of new circumstances necessitating a modification as evidence that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. While a failure to comply with § 141(f) may not on its own trigger legal consequences, it may serve as circumstantial evidence that the Secretary’s decision was not legitimate.7
7 Plaintiffs also argue that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question was made “without observation of procedure required by the law” in violation of § 706(2)(D) because the Secretary did not adhere to Office of Management and Budget guidelines and the Census Bureau’s testing and statistical standards. ECF No. 69 at 45–51. Just as noncompliance with congressional reporting requirements does not alone trigger an APA violation, violations of OMB statistical guidelines are not enough to demonstrate a §706(2)(D) violation. However, as with evidence of the Secretary’s failure to comply with congressional reporting instructions, evidence that the Secretary did not meet OMB or Census Bureau standards provides further support for Plaintiffs broader claim that the Secretary’s final action was arbitrary and capricious.
15

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 16 of 20
Ultimately, resolution of Plaintiffs’ APA claims, requires a factfinder to weigh opposing evidence in the Administrative Record, meaning summary judgment is not proper. Given the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ APA claims will proceed to trial.
D. LUPE Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection Claim8 For the LUPE Plaintiffs to establish their Equal Protection claim, they must prove that Defendants’ decision was motivated by discriminatory animus and its application has an adverse effect on a protected group. Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. 252, 264–65 (1977). The Fourth Circuit instructs that we look to the following non-exclusive list of probative factors to determine whether discriminatory intent motivated defendants: (1) evidence of a “consistent pattern” of actions by the decisionmaking body disparately impacting members of a particular class of persons; (2) historical background of the decision, which may take into account any history of discrimination by the decisionmaking body or the jurisdiction it represents; (3) the specific sequence of events leading up to the particular decision being challenged, including any significant departures from normal procedures; and (4) contemporary statements by decisionmakers on the record or in minutes of their meetings. Central Radio Company v. City of Norfolk, 811 F.3d 625, 635 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Sylvia Development v. Calvert County, 48 F.3d 810, 819 (4th Cir.1995)). As the Court noted when denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim, the Administrative Record supports Plaintiffs’ allegations that the decisionmaking body engaged in “significant departures from normal procedures.” The Court will not repeat that discussion here, but points the parties to that previous ruling, LUPE v. Ross, No. GJH-18-1570, 2018 WL 5885528, at *8 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2018). Similarly, that opinion discusses the “contemporary statements by decisionmakers” that support a finding of discriminatory animus. Id.9
8 The CM/ECF citations in this section refer to docket entries in the LUPE, 18-1570 case. 9 Although Defendants dispute the relevance of statements made by President Trump and other administration officials, they do not dispute the content of those statements. See ECF No. 89 (18-1570) at 12–13.
16

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 17 of 20
Although Defendants seek to narrow the Court’s attention to only those statements made by the Secretary as the so-called “sole-decisionmaker,” that approach ignores the evidence showing that Secretary Ross did not act alone. In fact, Defendants themselves emphasize that Secretary Ross received advice, requests, and recommendations from various administration officials and from Mr. Kobach, labeling this the “normal give-and-take of the agency process.” ECF No. 82-1 (18-1570) at 24. It is also non-sensical to assume as a matter of law that public statements alleged to have been made by the President regarding immigration had no bearing on the Secretary’s decision.
Defendants also argue unsuccessfully that “Plaintiffs fail to identify a protected class against which the Secretary allegedly discriminated.” LUPE, ECF No. 89 (18-1570) at 11 n. 3. This argument fails because Plaintiffs point to evidence that inclusion of a citizenship question in the decennial Census is motivated by racial animus towards Hispanics and non-white immigrants. Specifically, as previously described in Section III.A.1, the evidence before the Secretary demonstrated that a citizenship question would depress response rates by Hispanic households, and as detailed in the Court’s earlier opinion, 2018 WL 5885528 at *9, contemporary statements by those advising the Secretary support a finding of animus towards non-white immigrants.
Ultimately, evidence supporting the LUPE Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim creates a genuine dispute of material fact, and Defendants are not entitled to summary judgment on this count.
E. LUPE Plaintiffs’ Conspiracy to Violate Civil Rights Claim An actionable conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) requires “an agreement or a ‘meeting of the minds’ by defendants to violate the claimant’s constitutional rights.” Simmons v.
17

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 18 of 20
Poe, 47 F.3d 1370, 1377 (4th Cir. 1995). This Court previously found that the LUPE Plaintiffs had sufficiently pled a § 1985(3) claim, 2018 WL 5885528 at *11, based on factual allegations in the Complaint. These same factual allegations have now been supported with evidence.
As previously discussed, Mr. Kobach’s interest in a citizenship question stemmed from his view that states like California have had “congressional seats inflated by counting illegal aliens.” ECF No. 85-5 (18-1570) at 45; see also Administrative Record (AR) 763–64.10 Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs’ favor, Mr. Kobach was motivated to reduce immigrant response rates to achieve the unconstitutional goal of reducing their political power. Mr. Kobach pitched the citizenship question idea to administration officials beginning around January 2017. Id.
In light of the evidence that the DOJ’s voting-rights-act rationale was pretextual, the clearest indications about the Secretary’s actual purpose come from the exchanges between Mr. Kobach and administration officials, Mr. Comstock’s email response to the Secretary’s question about the Census, and the contemporary statements by decisionmakers discussed at the Motion to Dismiss stage. Taken together, this evidence suggests that the Secretary’s true purpose for adding a citizenship question was to depress noncitizen response rates. During the same period that Mr. Kobach pushed for a citizenship question, Earl Comstock responded to the Secretary’s question about the Census with his email highlighting that undocumented residents are counted for Congressional apportionment and pointing the Secretary to a blog about the “pitfalls of counting illegal immigrants.” ECF No. 85-7 (18-1570) at 13–15.
Plaintiffs’ demonstration of consistency between the Secretary’s actual purpose and Mr. Kobach’s articulated intent is not a mere showing of parallel conduct. Instead, the record allows
10 The Administrative Record was filed in the Kravitz case (18-1041), ECF Nos. 25 & 26, and incorporated into the LUPE Plaintiffs’ Opposition, ECF No. 85 (18-1570) at 11 n. 6.
18

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 19 of 20
for an inference that Mr. Kobach and administration officials achieved a “meeting of the minds” because it demonstrates coordination between Mr. Kobach, those advising the Secretary, and the Secretary. Over a period of months, Mr. Kobach spoke with Steve Bannon, President Trump, Secretary Ross, and Attorney General Sessions to persuade them to add a citizenship question for the express purpose of reducing the number of immigrant respondents. ECF No. 85-5 (18-1570) at 45, 52–53; see also AR 763–64. Secretary Ross and Mr. Kobach spoke at the direction of Mr. Bannon before the Secretary generated the DOJ voting-rights-act rationale. ECF No. 85-5 (181570) at 53. After the Secretary communicated with Mr. Kobach about adding a citizenship question, he pursued creating the DOJ voting-rights-act rationale and worked to find someone at DOJ willing to make the request for a citizenship question. Id. at 53, 58, 61, 79, 154–157; ECF No. 85-7 at 12, 18, 19; see also AR 11646–49, 11634–45, 11193, 12476, 1277–85 1525–27, 2651–52.
In sum, genuine disputes of material fact remain as to whether the requisite meeting of minds existed between Mr. Kobach and administration officials, and the LUPE Plaintiffs § 1985 claim may proceed to trial.
F. Kravitz Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint The Kravitz Plaintiffs wish to amend their Complaint to add an Equal Protection claim, which is substantively identical to the Equal Protection claim alleged by the LUPE Plaintiffs. ECF No. 71 (18-1041). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs amendments to pleadings before trial. At this stage of the litigation, the parties may amend their pleadings “only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Courts are to “freely give leave when justice so requires.” Id. Under this directive, a court should grant leave to amend unless a reason exists to deny leave, such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive
19

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 84 Filed 12/28/18 Page 20 of 20
on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Defendants do not argue (nor could they) that Plaintiffs’ proposed amendment would cause undue prejudice or that the amendment would be futile—the Kravitz and LUPE cases have now been consolidated, a trial date is already set at which Defendants will defend against an identical Equal Protection claim, and the Court has already denied a Motion to Dismiss based on substantively identical allegations. However, Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave because they claim that Plaintiffs acted with a dilatory motive when they waited until the Court had ruled on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the LUPE Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim before requesting to amend their Complaint. ECF No. 77 (18-1041). But rather than achieving a goal of delay, the Kravitz Plaintiffs’ decision to wait on the Court’s earlier ruling in the LUPE case, avoided consuming the parties’ and the Court’s resources with duplicative motions. Both parties seek efficient resolution of the Plaintiffs’ claims, and the addition of an Equal Protection claim to the Kravitz case will not cause any delay. As a result, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 71, will be granted. IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denied Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment in a separate order issued on December 19, 2018. A separate order will issue granting the Kravitz Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend.

Dated: December 28, 2018

/s/ GEORGE J. HAZEL United States District Judge
20

 
 Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 1 of 61
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

ROBYN KRAVITZ, 3606 Stewart Road District Heights Prince George’s County, MD 20747;
MICHAEL KRAVITZ, 3606 Stewart Road District Heights Prince George’s County, MD 20747;
CATHERINE NWOSU, 8004 18th Avenue Hyattsville Prince George’s County, MD 20783;
NNABUGWU NWOSU, 8004 18th Avenue Hyattsville Prince George’s County, MD 20783;
T. CARTER ROSS, 3915 Longfellow Street Hyattsville Prince George’s County, MD 20781;
JOANNE WILSON, 3806 Viser Court Bowie Prince George’s County, MD 20715;
ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ, 6170 W. Pierce Street Phoenix, AZ 85043;
RICHARD McCUNE, 455 West Crawford Street Nogales, AZ 85621;
JOSE MORENO, 443 East Ramona Street

Case No. 18-cv-01041
THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 2 of 61
Box 3293 Somerton, AZ 85350;
DIANA ALEXANDER, 10238 Rothbury Street Houston, TX 77043;
LAUREN RACHEL BERMAN, 3890 Dunhaven Road Dallas, TX 75220;
SARAH BRYAN, 1348 Shania Twain Drive Edinburg, TX 78541;
VIRGINIA GARCIA, 1520 Farragut Street Laredo, TX 78040;
LINDA RIVAS, 3301 Piedmont Drive El Paso, TX 79902;
MARTHA SANCHEZ, 2104 Goldcrest Avenue McAllen, TX 78504;
SONIA CASAREZ SHAFER, 7017 Chris Drive Pharr, Texas 78577;
MICHAEL KAGAN, 1909 Plaza de Cordero Las Vegas, NV 89102;
YAMILE LABORI, 5556 Azalea Circle West Palm Beach, FL 33415;
LAZARA YOELVIS MAGADAN, 14910 SW 82nd Terrace, Apt. 104 Miami, FL 33193;
ELIZABETH BUCHANAN, 1118 Lantana Drive Los Angeles, CA 90042;
2

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 3 of 61
JACOB CUNNINGHAM, 1118 Lantana Drive Los Angeles, CA 90042;
MAEGAN ORTIZ, 3017 Ganahl Street, Los Angeles, CA 90063
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
WILBUR L. ROSS, JR., in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
KAREN DUNN KELLEY in her official capacity as the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20230;
RON JARMIN in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
ENRIQUE LAMAS in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the
3

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 4 of 61
Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Census Bureau, 4600 Silver Hill Road Suitland Prince George’s County, MD 20746;
Defendants. INTRODUCTION
1. On March 26, 2018, in an abrupt reversal of 60 years of policy and practice, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., ordered the U.S. Census Bureau (the “Bureau” or “Census Bureau”) to add a question to the 2020 decennial census (“2020 Census”) questionnaire that requires respondents to report to the government whether they and their household members are United States citizens. Coming amidst what the Bureau itself has identified as a widespread climate of fear among citizen and noncitizen immigrants, the belated addition of a citizenship question will significantly depress response rates in certain communities, thereby undermining the completeness and accuracy of the 2020 Census. The Secretary insisted on the addition of a citizenship question despite expressly conceding that it could lead to a disproportionate undercount and without having conducted a single test, in almost seven years of pre-Census preparation, to assess the impact that a citizenship question would have on the accuracy of the census count.
2. The Secretary’s action violates the paramount constitutional objective of the decennial census—to count every person residing in the United States, citizen and noncitizen alike. It also contravenes binding legal requirements and the Bureau’s own policies and procedures for ensuring an accurate and complete census count. Defendants’ action not only violates the Fifth Amendment and the Census Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, but also must be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act
4

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 5 of 61

(“APA”) as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise in contravention of

applicable law.

3. Plaintiffs—individual citizens residing in Prince George’s County,

Maryland and the States of Arizona, Texas, Nevada, California, and Florida—bring this action

under the Constitution and the APA to block this unlawful assault on the integrity of the

decennial census and to prevent the harm that each of the Plaintiffs will suffer if this final agency

action taken by the U.S. Department of Commerce (the “Commerce Department” or

“Department”) is permitted to stand.

4.

The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a

decennial census counting the total number of “persons”—regardless of citizenship status—

residing in each state. The population data collected through this decennial census determines the

apportionment of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. States also use

these data to draw congressional and state legislative districts. And over $675 billion in federal

funding for a wide array of programs is allocated to individual states and localities every year

based upon decennial census data.

5. From 1960 until March 26, 2018, the Bureau had steadfastly determined,

in census after census, not to ask about citizenship status on the standard census questionnaire

used to count all persons in the United States. Bureau personnel have repeatedly found that such

a question was unnecessary to count total population and would undermine the accuracy and

completeness of the census by causing disproportionate levels of non-participation among certain

demographic groups.

6. As a federal statistical agency within the Commerce Department, the

Census Bureau is held to stringent regulations on impartiality, objectivity, and statistical

5

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 6 of 61
reliability, requiring decisions about census content and collection methodologies to be insulated from political considerations and based on rigorous pre-testing. The Census Bureau is nearly seven years into the preparation process for the 2020 Census and has already completed numerous tests to inform the final content, design, and operation of the 2020 Census.
7. None of the testing for the 2020 Census to date has evaluated the impact of a citizenship question on response rates to the 2020 Census questionnaire, or on the accuracy and completeness of 2020 Census data. The final pre-census test, a “dress rehearsal” that is the culmination of the Bureau’s research and testing efforts, is now underway and will not assess the impact of a citizenship question.
8. The Secretary’s last-minute decision to add a citizenship question—which reportedly overruled both top Bureau officials and the Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee—was purportedly made to satisfy a belated December 2017 request from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), which claimed that it needed “census block”-level citizenship data to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”). The DOJ’s claim, however, had no valid foundation. In over half a century of the VRA’s existence, census block-level citizenship data have never been available to or used by the government to enforce Section 2, nor have Congress or the courts required such data.
9. In reality, the VRA rationale is a mere pretext. The circumstances of the Secretary’s decision show that the addition of an untested citizenship question is a partisan act aimed at advancing the Trump Administration’s anti-immigration political agenda, heedless of legal requirements. Even before the Secretary announced his decision, President Trump’s reelection campaign sent a mass email declaring that the President “wants the 2020 United States Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens” and asking “if you’re on his side.” Within
6

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 7 of 61
two days of the Secretary’s decision, the Trump campaign sent out another mass e-mail asserting that President Trump had personally “mandated” the decision and soliciting political support on that basis.
10. As the Bureau’s own prior research and investigation demonstrate, Defendants’ reckless addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire will increase fear and distrust, depress response rates, and produce a disproportionate undercount of residents in states and localities with high numbers of certain demographic groups, including noncitizens, immigrants, non-English speakers, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin. This undercount will have harmful, decade-long effects for everyone who lives in these communities—citizens and noncitizens, native and foreign-born. Voters will be denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights to equitable political representation based on actual population, and billions of dollars in federal funding—for education, infrastructure, health care, and countless other pressing needs—will be unlawfully misallocated.
11. The 2020 Census must be carried out in accordance with the highest standards of statistical reliability, accuracy, and completeness, to ensure that the Constitution’s mandate to conduct an “actual Enumeration” of all “persons” is fulfilled. Plaintiffs bring this action to enjoin Defendants’ unlawful action and prevent severe injuries to themselves and to innumerable other citizens and noncitizens in states and localities across the country.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 over Plaintiffs’ claims arising under the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), and this Court may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and other relief against the Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705-706.
7

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 8 of 61
13. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, see Ex. 1, and its submission of the final census questions to Congress on March 29, 2018, see Ex. 2, constitute final agency action that is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). 5 U.S.C. §§ 704, 706.
14. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1). First, Defendants United States Census Bureau, Ron Jarmin (in his official capacity), and Enrique Lamas (in his official capacity) reside in Prince George’s County within this District. Second, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. Third, Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, Joanne Wilson, and T. Carter Ross reside in Prince George’s County within this District, and no real property is involved in this action.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Diana Alexander resides in Houston, Texas, a city located in Harris County. Ms. Alexander is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Houston falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Alexander regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Houston and Harris County. 16. Plaintiff Lauren Rachel Berman resides in Dallas, Texas, a city located in Dallas County. Ms. Berman is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Berman has applied to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services for a license to foster children. Once she obtains this license, she will be eligible to receive funds under the Federal Foster Care Program (Title IV-E). The children Ms. Berman fosters will also be eligible to receive health insurance under the federal-state Medicaid program. Dallas falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Berman regularly
8

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 9 of 61
drives on highways and roads in and around Dallas and Dallas County, including for her daily commute to work.
17. Plaintiff Sarah Bryan resides in Edinburg, Texas, a city located in Hidalgo County. Ms. Bryan is currently applying for United States citizenship and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Bryan has two daughters who attend public schools in Hidalgo County that receive funding under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“Title I”). Ms. Bryan’s daughters receive health insurance under the federal-state Medicaid program. Edinburg falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Bryan regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Edinburg and Hidalgo County, including for her daily commute to work.
18. Plaintiff Elizabeth Buchanan resides in Los Angeles, California, a city in Los Angeles County. Ms. Buchanan is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Los Angeles falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Buchanan has a three-year-old daughter who is expected to attend a public school in Los Angeles County. Ms. Buchanan regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Los Angeles County.
19. Plaintiff Alejandro Chavez resides in Phoenix, Arizona, a city located in Maricopa County. Mr. Chavez is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Mr. Chavez’s son currently attends a public school in Maricopa County that receives Title I funding. Mr. Chavez’s daughter currently goes to a special needs childcare facility in Maricopa County that is part of a public school that receives Title I funding. She will be starting pre-kindergarten at a school that receives Title I funding this fall. Phoenix falls within an
9

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 10 of 61
“urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Chavez regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Phoenix and Maricopa County.
20. Plaintiff Jacob Cunningham resides in Los Angeles, California, a city in Los Angeles County. Mr. Cunningham is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Los Angeles falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Cunningham has a three-year-old daughter who is expected to attend a public school in Los Angeles County. Mr. Cunningham regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Los Angeles County.
21. Plaintiff Virginia Garcia resides in Laredo, Texas, a city in Webb County. Ms. Garcia is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Laredo falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Garcia regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Laredo and Webb County.
22. Plaintiff Michael Kagan resides in Las Vegas, Nevada, a city in Clark County. Mr. Kagan is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Mr. Kagan’s daughter attends a public school in Clark County that receives Title I funding. Las Vegas falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Kagan regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Las Vegas and Clark County.
23. Plaintiff Robyn Kravitz resides in District Heights, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Ms. Kravitz’s daughter currently attends a public school in Prince George’s County. Her son recently attended, and is expected to re-enroll soon, in a public school in Prince George’s County that receivesTitle I funding. District Heights falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Kravitz regularly drives on
10

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 11 of 61
highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around District Heights and Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work.
24. Plaintiff Michael Kravitz resides in District Heights, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Mr. Kravitz’s daughter currently attends a public school in Prince George’s County. His son recently attended, and is expected to re-enroll soon, in a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. District Heights falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Kravitz regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around District Heights and Prince George’s County, including for his daily commute to work.
25. Plaintiff Yamile Labori resides in West Palm Beach, Florida, a city in Palm Beach County. Ms. Labori is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Labori’s daughter currently attends a public school in Palm Beach County that receives Title I funding. West Palm Beach falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Labori regularly drives on highways and roads in and around West Palm Beach and Palm Beach County, including as part of her job.
26. Plaintiff Lazara Yoelvis Magadan resides in Miami, Florida, a city located in Miami-Dade County. Ms. Magadan is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Miami falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Magadan regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Miami and Miami-Dade County, including to drop her son to school.
27. Plaintiff Richard McCune resides in Nogales, Arizona, a city located in Santa Cruz County. Mr. McCune is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in
11

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 12 of 61
elections after 2020. Mr. McCune regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Nogales and Santa Cruz County and other parts of Arizona.
28. Plaintiff Jose Moreno resides in Somerton, Arizona, a city located in Yuma County. Mr. Moreno is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Mr. Moreno is the Vice Principal at Somerton Middle School, a public school that receives Title I funding. He has three children who attend public schools that receive Title I funding. Mr. Moreno regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Somerton and Yuma County.
29. Plaintiff Catherine Nwosu resides in Langley Park, Maryland, an unincorporated area in Prince George’s County. Ms. Nwosu is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Nwosu’s son attends a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. Langley Park falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Nwosu regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around Langley Park and Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work.
30. Plaintiff Nnabugwu Nwosu resides in Langley Park, Maryland, an unincorporated area in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Mr. Nwosu is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Mr. Nwosu’s son attends a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. Langley Park falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Nwosu regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around Langley Park and Prince George’s County, including for his daily commute to work.
12

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 13 of 61
31. Plaintiff Maegan Ortiz resides in Los Angeles, California, a city located in Los Angeles County. Ms. Ortiz is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Ortiz’s daughter attends a public school in Los Angeles County that receives Title I funding. Los Angeles falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Ortiz regularly uses public transportation in and around Los Angeles and Los Angeles County.
32. Plaintiff Linda Rivas resides in El Paso, Texas, a city located in El Paso County. Ms. Rivas is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Rivas’s son attends a public school in El Paso County that receives Title I funding. El Paso falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Rivas regularly drives on highways and roads in and around El Paso and El Paso County.
33. Plaintiff T. Carter Ross resides in Hyattsville, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Mr. Ross is eligible to vote and intends to vote where he resides in elections after 2020. Two of Mr. Ross’s children attend a public school in Prince George’s County that receives Title I funding. Hyattsville falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Mr. Ross regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around Hyattsville and Prince George’s County, including for his daily commute to work.
34. Plaintiff Martha Sanchez resides in McAllen, Texas, a city located in Hidalgo County. Ms. Sanchez is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. McAllen falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Sanchez regularly drives on highways and roads in and around McAllen and Hidalgo County, including for her daily commute to work.
13

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 14 of 61
35. Plaintiff Sonia Casarez Shafer resides in Pharr, Texas, a city located in Hidalgo County. Ms. Shafer is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Ms. Shafer’s children attend public schools in Hidalgo County that receive Title I funding. Ms. Shafer’s children receive health insurance under the federal-state Medicaid program. Pharr falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Shafer regularly drives on highways and roads in and around Pharr and Hidalgo County.
36. Plaintiff Joanne Wilson resides in Bowie, Maryland, a city located in Prince George’s County. Ms. Wilson is eligible to vote and intends to vote where she resides in elections after 2020. Two of Ms. Wilson’s children attend public school in Prince George’s County. Bowie falls within an “urbanized area” for purposes of federal transportation funding. Ms. Wilson regularly drives on highways and roads, and uses other modes of transportation, in and around Bowie and Prince George’s County, including for her daily commute to work.
37. Defendant United States Department of Commerce is a cabinet-level department of the United States federal government. It oversees the development, content, and implementation of the federal decennial census, including the 2020 Census, by the United States Census Bureau.
38. Defendant United States Census Bureau is an agency within the Commerce Department. It is responsible for developing and implementing the 2020 Census, subject to oversight by the Commerce Department.
39. Defendant Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., is the Secretary of Commerce. He has responsibility for overseeing the Bureau, including with respect to the Bureau’s responsibility to develop and implement the 2020 Census. Secretary Ross is sued in his official capacity.
14

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 15 of 61
40. Defendant Karen Dunn Kelley is the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce. She oversees the Department’s statistical programs, including the United States Census Bureau. She is sued in her official capacity.
41. Defendant Ron Jarmin is performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of the United States Census Bureau. He has responsibility for the development and implementation of the 2020 Census. He is sued in his official capacity.
42. Defendant Enrique Lamas is performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the United States Census Bureau. He has responsibility for the development and implementation of the 2020 Census. He is sued in his official capacity.
LEGAL BACKGROUND A. The Constitutional Mandate to Count All “Persons”
43. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 (the “Census Clause”) of the United States Constitution mandates that the federal government shall conduct an “actual Enumeration” of the United States population every ten years. As amended by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this “Enumeration” must count “the whole number of persons in each state,” regardless of such persons’ status as citizens or noncitizens.
44. Pursuant to the Census Clause, representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives “shall be apportioned among the several States . . . according to their respective Numbers,” based upon the decennial census. U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Apportionment must be “based on total population,” regardless of citizenship. Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120, 1127-29 (2015). An “actual Enumeration” for purposes of apportionment is the sole constitutional objective of the decennial census.
15

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 16 of 61
45. States also use population data from the decennial census to draw congressional and state legislative districts of equal population, as required by the U.S. Constitution.
46. In addition, federal government agencies utilize data from the decennial census, including population data, to allocate more than $675 billion in federal funds involving over 130 different federal programs.1 This includes funding for public schools under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and for federal transportation planning programs, some of which is calculated based on the population of urbanized areas. Decennial census data also impacts funding for a wide range of other programs, including special education, Head Start, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, child care assistance, foster care, adoption assistance, home energy assistance, and the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children.
B. Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment 47. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution mandates that no
person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The Supreme Court has long held that the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause applies equal protection to the federal government. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). The Court has also explained that “[e]qual protection analysis in the Fifth Amendment area is the same as that under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 93 (1976).
1 Marisa Hotchkiss and Jessica Phelan, Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution at 3 (Sept. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-Bureau-Data-inFederal-Funds-Distribution.pdf.
16

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 17 of 61
48. Equal protection provides heightened judicial scrutiny for government discrimination of racial, ethnic, and noncitizen minorities. The Supreme Court has recognized that “prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities” and thus “may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.” United States v. Carolene Prods. Co., 304 U.S. 144, 153 n.4 (1938).
49. Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ equal protection rights if Defendants’ decision was motivated by discriminatory animus and its application has an adverse effect on a protected group. See Vill. of Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. (“Arlington Heights”), 429 U.S. 252, 264–65 (1977); La Union Del Pueblo Entero v. Ross, No. GJH-181570, 2018 WL 5885528, at *8 (D. Md. Nov. 9, 2018). In order to determine whether the government acted with discriminatory intent, courts conduct a “sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available.” Arlington Heights, 429 U.S. at 265.
C. The Statutory and Regulatory Framework (1) Congress’s Specification of the Bureau’s Duties Under the Census Act 50. Pursuant to its constitutional authority to prescribe the “Manner” in which
the decennial census is taken, Congress has delegated the duty of conducting the census to the Secretary of Commerce under the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141. Although the Secretary has authority to determine the “form and content” of the census, id. § 141(a), this discretion is not unlimited.
51. In particular, the preparation for the decennial census is a decade-long undertaking subject to interim statutory deadlines and congressional oversight. The Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(a), directs the Secretary to take a decennial census of “population as of the first
17

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 18 of 61
day of April” in 1980 “and every ten years thereafter” (the “Census Date”). This “tabulation of total population by State” must be completed within nine months of the Census Date. Id. § 141(b).
52. Not later than three years before the Census Date, the Secretary must submit a report containing his “determination” as to the subjects to be included and the types of information to be compiled in the next decennial census. Id. § 141(f)(1). The deadline for submission of this report for the 2020 Census was March 31, 2017.
53. Not later than two years before the Census Date, the Secretary must submit another report to Congress setting forth his “determination” as to the questions to be asked in the next decennial census. Id. § 141(f)(2). The deadline for submission of this report for the 2020 Census was March 31, 2018.
54. The Secretary may not modify the subjects, types of information, or questions contained in a report under § 141(f)(1) or (f)(2) without finding that “new circumstances exist which necessitate” such a modification and reporting that finding to Congress. Id. § 141(f)(3).
(2) The Requirements of Independence, Impartiality, and Statistical Rigor in Conducting the Decennial Census
55. The Secretary’s discretion is also limited by the statutory and regulatory framework that Congress has established to ensure that the Census Bureau provides impartial, unbiased, and objective data consistent with the highest standards of statistical accuracy and reliability.
56. The Census Bureau is a “statistical agency” within the “Federal statistical system” subject to the standards and directives of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. §§ 3501-21. The PRA directs
18

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 19 of 61
OMB to ensure “the integrity, objectivity, impartiality, utility, and confidentiality of information collected for statistical purposes” by federal statistical agencies, id. § 3504(e)(1)(B), including by issuing “[g]overnment-wide policies, principles, standards, and guidelines” governing “statistical collection procedures and methods,” id. § 3504(e)(3)(A).
57. Under the PRA, the Census Bureau must adhere to OMB’s “statistical policy and coordination” standards, including with respect to data collection and analysis. Id. § 3506(e)(4); see also 5 C.F.R. § 1320.18(c) (OMB regulation requiring agency compliance with “the information policies, principles, standards, and guidelines prescribed by OMB” under the PRA).
58. Through the Information Quality Act (“IQA”), Congress further underscored the importance of the PRA’s requirement that agencies disseminate objective and accurate information.2 The IQA instructs OMB and federal agencies to issue guidance for “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information they disseminate.”3
59. Pursuant to its authority over the Federal statistical system under 44 U.S.C. § 3504(e), OMB has issued directives defining the statistical standards that agencies, including the Census Bureau, must follow. In particular, OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, entitled “Fundamental Responsibilities of Federal Statistical Agencies and Recognized Statistical Units,” requires the Census Bureau to “apply sound statistical methods to ensure statistical products are accurate,” and to “produce data that are impartial, clear, and complete and
2 Consol. Appropriations Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554, § 515, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000) (amending PRA). 3 Id. § 515(a).
19

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 20 of 61
are readily perceived as such by the public.”4 To guarantee such impartiality, statistical agencies including the Census Bureau “must function in an environment that is clearly separate and autonomous from the other administrative, regulatory, law enforcement, or policy-making activities within their respective Departments” and “must be able to conduct statistical activities autonomously when determining what information to collect and process.”5
60. Further, OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, entitled “Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys,” requires the Census Bureau, inter alia, to (i) design its surveys “to achieve the highest practical rates of response, commensurate with the importance of survey uses”; (ii) pretest the survey components, if they have not been successfully used before, to “ensure that all components of a survey function as intended when implemented in the fullscale survey” and that “measurement error is controlled”; and (iii) administer the survey in a way that “maximiz[es] data quality” while “minimizing respondent burden and cost.”6
61. Consistent with OMB directives, the Census Bureau has issued its own Statistical Quality Standards that “address[] the Census Bureau’s unique methodological and operational issues” and “apply to all information products released by the Census Bureau and the activities that generate those products.”7
4 Office of Mgmt. and Budget, Statistical Policy Directive No. 1., Fundamental Responsibilities of Fed. Statistical Agencies and Recognized Statistical Units, 79 Fed. Reg. 71,610, 71,615 (Dec. 2, 2014). 5 Id. 6 Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys at §§ 1.3, 1.4, 2.3 (2006), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/statpolicy/standards_stat_s urveys.pdf (emphasis added); see also 71 Fed. Reg. 55,522 (Sept. 22, 2006). 7 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at ii (Reissued Jul. 2013), https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/about/about-the-bureau/policies_and_notices/ quality/statistical-quality-standards/Quality_Standards.pdf.
20

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 21 of 61
62. Pursuant to its obligations under the IQA, the Census Bureau has also issued stringent Information Quality Guidelines that require the Bureau to “provide information that is accurate, reliable and unbiased.”8
63. As federal administrative agencies, the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau are also subject to the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06. Under the APA, agency action is unlawful and courts must set such action aside if it is, inter alia, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A); “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B); “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” id. § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).
(3) The Necessity of Rigorous Pretesting of Census Questions and Other Content
64. Rigorous pretesting of all survey questions and questionnaires as a whole is an essential component of the Census Bureau’s preparations for the decennial census, including the 2020 Census. Consistent with the pretesting requirement set forth in OMB’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 2, the Bureau’s own Statistical Quality Standards specify that “[d]ata collection instruments and supporting materials must be pretested with respondents to identify problems” and must then be “refined, prior to implementation, based on pretesting results.”9 The Bureau’s pretesting must consider problems related not only to the content of a question, but also to “order/context effects, skip instructions, formatting, [and] navigation”;
8 U.S. Census Bureau, Information Quality: Objectivity, https://www.census.gov/about/policies/ quality/guidelines/objectivity.html (last revised Apr. 17, 2015). 9 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at 8.
21

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 22 of 61
pretesting must also verify that a question does not cause “undue burden” and is not “unduly sensitive.”10
65. Furthermore, additions or changes to the questions contained in the
decennial census questionnaire must be pretested to ensure that they are necessary and will not
compromise the impartiality, accuracy, and reliability of census data. As stated by the Bureau at
its January 2018 quarterly Program Management Review:
Adding a question or making a change to the Decennial Census . . . involves extensive testing, review, and evaluation. This process ensures the change is necessary and will produce quality useful information for the nation . . . . Final proposed questions result from extensive cognitive and field testing to ensure they result in the proper data with an integrity that meets the Census Bureau’s high standards.11 66. This pretesting process takes many years to complete. For example, the
Census Bureau spent nine years developing a combined race and ethnicity question for the 2020
Census. This included several years of designing and testing different alternatives for the
language, layout, and instructions regarding the revised question in order to assess the accuracy
and reliability of respondents’ answers to various wording and layout options. The Census
Bureau concluded its process at the end of 2017 because it “needed to make a decision on the
design of the race and ethnicity questions by December 31, 2017 in order to prepare for the 2020
10 Id. 11 U.S. Census Bureau, Jan. 26, 2018 Program Mgmt. Review Tr. at 20, https://www2.census. gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/pmr-materials/01-262018/transcript-2018-01-26-pmr.pdf. See also Review of 1990 Decennial Census Questionnaire: Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Census & Population of the Comm. on Post Office and Civil Serv., 100th Cong. 69 (April 1988) (Statement of John Keane, Dir. Bureau of the Census) (highlighting sensitivity of question wording and arrangement, and noting that without pretesting the Bureau “wouldn’t know the technical problems and uncertainty worries us as much as a negative test result”).
22

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 23 of 61
Census systems, and deliver the final 2020 Census question wording to Congress by March 31, 2018.”12
67. Because the Census Bureau will provide language support for the 2020 Census in multiple foreign languages, such pretesting must be conducted not only in English but also in multiple other languages. The Bureau’s Statistical Quality Standards require that “[d]ata collection instruments in any languages other than English must be pretested in the languages that will be used to collect data during production.”13 Both questionnaires and non-questionnaire materials must be prepared in multiple languages.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. The Census Bureau’s Extensive Pretesting of the 2020 Census Questionnaire
Without Any Question or Other Inquiry Regarding Citizenship 68. In light of the pretesting and other requirements imposed by the above legal framework, and the operational demands of preparing for a nationwide survey of every U.S. household, the Census Bureau began preparing for the 2020 Census in 2011. None of the Bureau’s preparations over the last seven years contemplated the inclusion of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire. Indeed, the Bureau has done nothing to test the use of a citizenship question in the context of the 2020 Census questionnaire, including the impact that such a question would have on response rates. 69. The 2020 Census will utilize a single questionnaire, which contains only a limited number of questions designed to collect basic demographic information from every
12 Memorandum, U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Program Memorandum Series: 2018.02, Using Two Separate Questions for Race and Ethnicity in 2018 End-to-End Census Test and 2020 Census (Jan. 26, 2018), https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/programmanagement/memo-series/2020-memo-2018_02.pdf. 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Quality Standards at 10.
23

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 24 of 61
resident and determine the total population of persons residing in each state within the United States.14 Prior to 2010 and for much of the 20th century, the decennial census used both a “shortform” and a “long-form” questionnaire. The short-form questionnaire, sent to the vast majority of U.S. households, was similar to the single questionnaire that will be used in the 2020 Census. The long-form questionnaire was sent only to a limited random sample of U.S. households and was designed to collect more detailed social, housing, and economic information. Beginning with the 2010 decennial census, the long-form questionnaire was dropped and the decennial census was taken using a single short-form questionnaire sent to all U.S. households. In 2005, the Bureau began using the American Community Survey (“ACS”) to gather, on an ongoing, monthly basis, the more detailed population data from a sample of U.S. households that were previously collected on a decennial basis through the long-form questionnaire.
70. As part of its preparation for the 2020 Census, the Bureau and OMB conducted a “comprehensive review” of the content to be included in the 2020 Census questionnaire.15 In accordance with the Bureau’s rigorous testing protocols, this review included extensive testing of the wording, content, and layout of the 2020 Census questionnaire.
71. The Bureau has conducted an annual census test of various questions and technologies in every year since 2012. These tests are used to assess methods to improve the 2020 Census, including by identifying potential wording changes to questionnaire content, procedures to improve self-response rates, and follow-up procedures for residents who do not respond. For example, the 2012 National Census Test assessed self-response rates and evaluated the performance of a combined race and origin question. The 2013 Census Test considered
14 Under 13 U.S.C § 221, United States residents are legally required to respond to the questionnaire. 15 U.S. Census Bureau, Jan. 26, 2018 Program Mgmt. Review Tr. at 21.
24

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 25 of 61
methods to improve non-response follow-up procedures. The 2014 Census Test evaluated various technologies for enumeration and census responses, including the Internet and mobile devices. As part of the 2014 test, the Census Bureau examined respondents’ reactions, including privacy and confidentiality concerns.
72. In 2015, the Bureau conducted the National Content Test, which represented “the only opportunity to test [decennial census] content with a nationally representative sample prior to the 2020 Census.”16 The Bureau emphasized that, without the results of the 2015 National Content Test, it “would lack some of the key quantitative evidence needed to improve upon the current decennial census design.”17 The Bureau announced the results of this test in March 2017.18
73. The Census Bureau also has conducted cognitive testing of potential questionnaire content for the 2020 Census since at least 2015. These tests are used to understand how respondents interpret census questions and instructions, in the context of the entire questionnaire, in order to determine whether the questionnaire as a whole is interpreted as intended and to evaluate question sensitivity, including the potential impact on the rates and accuracy of responses.
16 U.S. Census Bureau, Supporting Statement for 2015 National Content Test at 15, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/decennial/2020 census/ 2015_census_tests/nct/2015-nct-omb-package.pdf. 17 Id. at 17. 18 For each decennial census since 1970, “the Census Bureau has conducted content tests to research and improve the design and function of different questions.” U.S. Census Bureau, Content Research (Jan. 11, 2017), https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennialcensus/2020-census/research-testing/content-research.html. This thorough vetting process included testing of the language of specific questions in decennial National Content Tests in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2005, and 2015, as well as testing the performance of proposed topics and specific questions in the field with actual respondents.
25

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 26 of 61
74. In addition, the Bureau has conducted extensive testing of non-English
materials in order to “[o]ptimize the non-English content of questionnaires and associated non-
questionnaire materials across data collection modes.”19
75. The Bureau is now conducting its 2018 End-to-End Census Test. In past
censuses, the End-to-End Census Test was referred to as the “dress rehearsal”: it is “the final test
to help prepare for the 2020 Census”20 and marks the “culmination” of the Bureau’s “extensive
research and testing to inform census design.”21 The primary objective of the test is to “confirm”
key features that will be deployed in the 2020 Census.22
76. The Census Bureau conducts testing specific to the decennial census
questionnaire throughout the decade and does not rely on data imported from testing on other
surveys to support decennial census testing. In particular, the Bureau has specifically emphasized
that testing data from other surveys cannot substitute for the 2018 End-to-End Test, which is the
final dress rehearsal for the 2020 Census:
[M]ost survey results cannot be directly applied to a decennial census environment. The size, scope, mandatory nature, importance of results (for such things as congressional apportionment, state redistricting efforts, and the allocation of billions of dollars in federal funds each year), and timing constraints (legal deadlines for producing apportionment and redistricting data) of the decennial census are unique. Thus, thorough and separate research and integrated testing must be conducted to ensure that new methods and
19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Operational Plan Version 3.0, at 72 (Sept. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/planningdocs/2020-oper-plan3.pdf. 20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Census Test, Frequently Asked Questions for the 2018 Census Test, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/2018-census-test/faqs.html (last revised Mar. 16, 2018). 21 U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 Census Test, About this Test, https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/decennial-census/2018-census-test/about.html (last revised Mar. 16, 2018). 22 Id.
26

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 27 of 61
operations will work in a decennial census environment.23 77. None of the above-mentioned pretesting for the 2020 Census—including but not limited to the 2012 National Census Test, the 2013 Census Test, the 2014 National Census Test, the 2015 National Content Test, and the ongoing 2018 End-to-End Test—has included a citizenship question or gathered statistical data on the impact of a citizenship question in the context of the 2020 Census questionnaire. B. The Secretary’s 2017 Determination Not to Include Citizenship as a Subject of the 2020 Census 78. Under the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(1), the Secretary was required to submit a report to Congress by March 31, 2017, containing his determination as to the subjects and types of information to be collected on the 2020 Census. Pursuant to this provision, the Census Bureau submitted its report of the Subjects Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey (“March 2017 Report”) to Congress on March 28, 2017. 79. The March 2017 Report set forth the Secretary’s determination that the only subjects to be included on the 2020 Census questionnaire are age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship to head of household, and tenure (i.e., whether the respondent is an owner or renter).24 The March 2017 Report made no reference to inclusion of citizenship as a subject for the 2020 Census. 80. The Secretary’s determination not to include citizenship as a subject of the 2020 Census was consistent with long-standing agency policy and practice going back nearly 60
23 U.S. Census Bureau, Supporting Statement for 2018 End-to-End Census Test—Peak Operations (Jan. 23, 2018), available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument? ref_nbr=201801-0607-002. 24 U.S. Census Bureau, Subjects Planned for 2020 Census at 5-15 (Mar. 2017), https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/2020/operations/planned-subjects-2020acs.pdf.
27

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 28 of 61
years. The Census Bureau has consistently taken the position that asking all households and respondents to report their citizenship status as part of the decennial census would depress response rates, particularly among certain historically undercounted groups, and would compromise the accuracy and completeness of the census count.
81. In the 1950s, the Census Bureau determined that information on citizenship was not important enough to seek from every household and consequently removed the citizenship question from the short-form questionnaire for the 1960 decennial census. As noted above, since 1960, citizenship information has been collected only through the long-form questionnaire or the ACS, each administered only to a limited sample of the U.S. population. No question concerning citizenship appeared on the short-form questionnaire used to conduct the decennial census in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010.
82. Prior to the 1980 decennial census, an interagency council including Bureau officials was tasked with examining the content and coverage of the census questionnaire, and it expressly recommended that a citizenship question not be included on the short-form questionnaire.25
83. Prior to the 1990 decennial census, the Bureau publicly opposed the inclusion of any question concerning citizenship on the 1990 short-form questionnaire. The Bureau’s then-Director warned that a census question on citizenship and legal status could cause the Census Bureau to be adversely “perceived as an enforcement agency,” with “a major effect
25 Aff. of Daniel B. Levine, Deputy Dir. of the Census Bureau at ¶ 5, Ex. A to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss the Action or, in the Alt., for Summ. J., Fed’n for Am. Immigr. Reform v. Klutznick, No. 79-3269 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 9, 1983); see also U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 Census of Population and Housing History at 1-23 (Aug. 1989) (statement to Congress that inquiries about respondents’ legal status “would have seriously hampered its efforts to achieve a complete count”).
28

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 29 of 61
on census coverage.”26 The Director stated the Bureau’s conclusion that both undocumented immigrants and legal residents might “misunderstand or mistrust the census and fail or refuse to respond,” resulting in reduced census counts for some cities and states.27
84. In 2010, the Director of the Census Bureau, Robert Groves, explained that “we don’t ask citizenship or documentation status, all of the things that may make people uncomfortable are gone from [the census] form.”28
85. Echoing the Bureau’s long-standing policy, numerous former Census Bureau directors have emphasized the deleterious impact that a citizenship question would have in depressing response rates and diminishing the accuracy and completeness of the census. In 2005, Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census Bureau Director for the 2000 decennial census, explained that any proposed question to distinguish noncitizens from citizens “will be treated with suspicion” and cause “many American citizens as well as noncitizens” to avoid the question.29
86. In 2009, eight former Census Bureau Directors who served both Republican and Democratic administrations jointly declared that inclusion of a citizenship question would create “problems during door-to-door visits to unresponsive households, when a
26 Enumeration of Undocumented Aliens in the Decennial Census: Hr’g Before the Subcomm, on Energy, Nuclear Proliferation, and Gov’t Processes of the S. Comm. on Governmental Affairs, 99th Cong. 32 (1985) (Statement of John Keane, Dir., Bureau of the Census). 27 Exclude Undocumented Residents from Census Counts Used for Apportionment: Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Post Office & Civil Serv., 100th Cong. 50 (June 1988) (Statement of John Keane, Dir., Bureau of the Census). 28 Video of Robert Groves, C-SPAN (Mar. 26, 2010), https://www.c-span.org/video/?2927436/2010-us-census&start=1902. 29 Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Rep., Hr’g Before the Subcomm. on Federalism and the Census of the Cmte on Gov’t Reform, 109th Cong. 72 (Dec. 6, 2005) (Statement of Kenneth Prewitt).
29

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 30 of 61
legalized ‘head of household’ would avoid enumerators because one or more other household members are present unlawfully.”30
87. In 2016, four former Census Bureau Directors appointed by presidents of both parties stated in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that “a one-by-one citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general,” and would “seriously frustrate the Census Bureau’s ability to conduct the only count the Constitution expressly requires: determining the whole number of persons in each state in order to apportion House seats among the states.”31 Citing increased suspicion of government collection of information in general, and particular anxiety among noncitizens, they stated that the addition of a citizenship question would result in “a reduced rate of response overall and an increase in inaccurate responses.”32
C. The Trump Administration Plays Politics With the 2020 Census 88. Immediately upon taking office in January 2017, President Trump
revealed his intention to press the 2020 Census into the service of his anti-immigration political agenda, by shoehorning a citizenship question into the 2020 Census questionnaire.
89. By January 31, 2017, less than two weeks after President Trump’s inauguration, the administration had prepared a draft Executive Order which, among other things, directed the Census Bureau to ask “questions to determine U.S. citizenship and
30 Statement of Former Census Directors on Adding a New Question to the 2010 Census at 1-2 (Oct. 16, 2009), https://web.archive.org/web/20100718133124/https://thecensusproject.org/ letters/cp-formerdirs-16oct2009.pdf. 31 Amicus Br. of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau at 25, Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016) (No. 14-940). 32 Id. at 5.
30

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 31 of 61
immigration status” through the decennial census.33 A background memo accompanying the draft order stated that its purpose was to “fulfill several campaign promises by aligning immigration policies with the national interest.”34 The memo further indicated that the provisions of the draft order were meant to address “the flow of illegal entries and visa overstays” and the “unlawful employment of aliens.”35 Neither the draft order, which to date has not been issued, nor the background memo detailing its objectives made any mention of the VRA.
90. Kris Kobach, who advised President Trump on immigration issues during the 2016 Presidential campaign and served on the Trump transition team, has acknowledged that in the early days of the Trump presidency he urged the President to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire. Kobach stated to the media that President Trump was “absolutely . . . interested in this,” and that the Census should inquire into citizenship because California in particular has had its “congressional seats inflated by counting illegal aliens.”36
91. On December 12, 2017, Arthur Gary, general counsel for the DOJ’s Justice Management Division, sent a letter addressed to Defendant Jarmin (the “DOJ Letter”), requesting that the Census Bureau include a question about citizenship status on the 2020 Census
33 Abigail Hauslohner and Janell Ross, Trump administration circulates more draft immigration restrictions, focusing on protecting U.S. jobs, Wash. Post (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www. washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-circulates-more-draftimmigration-restrictions-focusing-on-protecting-us-jobs/2017/01/31/38529236-e741-11e6-80c230e57e57e05d_story.html?utm_term=.4d2d4847755a; The White House, Memorandum from Andrew Bremberg to the President at 7 (Jan. 23, 2017), https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/ uploads/chorus_asset/file/7872567/Protecting_American_Jobs_and_Workers_by_Strengthening_ the_Integrity_of_Foreign_Worker_Visa_Programs.0.pdf [hereinafter “January 2017 Memorandum”]. 34 January 2017 Memorandum at 1. 35 Id. 36 Bryan Lowry, That citizenship question on the 2020 Census? Kobach says he pitched it to Trump, The Kan. City Star (Mar. 27, 2018, 2:01 p.m.), available at https://goo.gl/iZFVjP.
31

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 32 of 61
questionnaire.37 The DOJ Letter asserted that obtaining citizenship data from the decennial census was “critical to the [DOJ’s] enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act” because the ACS allegedly does not yield “ideal” data on citizen voting age population (“CVAP”),38 a relevant data point for certain Section 2 cases.
92. Emails released by the DOJ in response to a Freedom of Information Act request show that the DOJ Letter was sent at the request of DOJ leadership. The U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has in the past expressed public support for including a citizenship question in the decennial census as a tool to assist law enforcement in locating undocumented immigrants.
93. While the DOJ Letter was still under review by the Secretary and the Census Bureau, and only days before the Secretary’s announcement of his decision, the President’s reelection campaign sent a mass fundraising email declaring: “The President wants the 2020 United States Census to ask people whether or not they are citizens. . . . The President wants to know if you’re on his side.”39 The email then provided survey response buttons that linked to a page seeking campaign contributions.
94. Meanwhile, on January 11, 2018, President Trump asked advisors and party leaders why he would want “all these people from shithole countries,” referring to Haiti
37 Letter from Arthur E. Gary, General Counsol, Justice Management Division to Dr. Ron Jarmin (Dec. 12, 2017), https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4340651-Text-of-Dec-2017-DOJletter-to-Census.html [hereinafter “DOJ Letter”]. 38 Id. at 1-2. 39 Tierney Sneed, Trump Fundraising Off Controversial Push To Include Citizenship Question In Census, Talking Points Memo (Mar. 19, 2018), https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/ trump-fundraising-off-controversial-push-to-include-citizenship-question-in-census.
32

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 33 of 61
and various nations in Africa, and also expressed a desire for the United States to accept more immigrants from countries like Norway.40
95. On March 26, 2018, Defendant Ross issued a memorandum to Defendant Kelley (the “Ross Memorandum”) advising the Census Bureau of his determination to reverse nearly 60 years of Census Bureau policy and practice in 2020 by including a citizenship question on the census questionnaire to be sent to every U.S. household. See Ex. 1, attached, at 8. Secretary Ross’ decision was reportedly opposed by career officials at the Census Bureau and the Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee.41
96. Two days later, on March 28, 2018, the President’s reelection campaign released yet another mass fundraising email, announcing that “President Trump has officially mandated that the 2020 United States Census ask people living in America whether or not they are citizens.” The email asked respondents to sign a petition supporting “the President’s decision” to “make citizenship a question on the 2020 United States Census.”42
97. On May 16, 2018, President Trump participated in a California Sanctuary State Roundtable. In response to a comment by Fresno County Sheriff, Margaret Mim, about the
40 Julie H. Davis, et al., Trump Alarms Lawmakers With Disparaging Words for Haiti and Africa, NYT, Jan. 11, 2018, available at https://goo.gl/xCTsNN. 41 Justin Elliott, Wilbur Ross Overruled Career Officials at Census Bureau to Add Citizenship Question, ProPublica (Mar. 27, 2018), https://www.propublica.org/article/wilbur-ross-overruledcareer-officials-at-census-bureau-to-add-citizenship-question; Michael Wines, Census Bureau’s Own Expert Panel Rebukes Decision to Add Citizenship Question, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/us/census-bureau-citizenship.html; Census Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting, Day 1, video at 1:56:25-2:17:42 (Presentation of Dr. D. Sunshine Hillygus, Member of the Scientific Advisory Committee) (Mar. 29, 2018), https://youtu.be/ JlxZ16qRo9s; id. at 2:28:15-2:28:22 (Statement of Dr. Barbara Anderson, Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee). 42 Ray Schultz, Trump Campaign Exploits Citizenship Question In Email, Elite Marketing Daily Mar. 29, 2018), https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/316863/trump-campaignexploits-citizenship-question-in-em.html.
33

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 34 of 61
criminal gang MS-13, President Trump said, “We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in . . . . You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”43
D. The Secretary’s Unlawful Failure to Identify Any Valid Basis for the Belated Insertion of a Citizenship Question Into the 2020 Census Questionnaire 98. The Ross Memorandum asserted that the Secretary had taken a “hard
look” at the request in the DOJ Letter and considered “all facts and data relevant” to making an informed decision regarding the DOJ request. Ex. 1 at 1. However, the Memorandum contained no evaluation of the asserted legal or statistical foundation for the DOJ request and no independent assessment by the Commerce Department or Census Bureau of the asserted governmental benefit of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire.
99. In particular, the Ross Memorandum accepted at face value the DOJ Letter’s assertion that “census block level” CVAP data are needed to enforce Section 2 of the VRA and determined, on that basis, that a citizenship question should be added to the 2020 Census questionnaire. In fact, enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA has never depended on block-level CVAP data. The sampling of citizenship information collected through the long-form questionnaire and the ACS never provided data at that level, yet courts have consistently recognized the reliability of citizenship data from the long-form questionnaire and ACS for purposes of Section 2 enforcement.44
43 President Trump Hosts California Sanctuary State Roundtable, C-SPAN (May 16, 2018), available at cs.pn/2INPSJ4. 44 See, e.g., Cisneros v. Pasadena Indep. School Dist., No. 4:12-CV-2579, 2014 WL 1668500, at *8 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2014) (“This Court, like others, finds the ACS’s estimates of CVAP
34

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 35 of 61
100. In 2000, the Census Bureau conducted its own analysis of the VRA’s implications for the decennial census and concluded that the VRA required data on the “number of persons by age, race, and Hispanic origin at the [census] block level,” but did not require block-level CVAP data.45 The Ross Memorandum failed to cite the Bureau’s prior conclusion that the VRA only required block-level data on age, race, and Hispanic origin. Nor did it identify any relevant recent change to the legal requirements for the enforcement of Section 2 of the VRA, or suggest that the Bureau had made any finding that its prior determination was flawed.
101. The Ross Memorandum also did not acknowledge that the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire would result in the addition of a new subject for the 2020 Census not reported to Congress in the Bureau’s March 2017 Report pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(1). The Memorandum failed to identify any “new circumstances” arising since March 2017 that necessitated this expansion of the 2020 Census subjects previously reported to Congress in March 2017—as required under 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(3) to justify such a modification.
102. Although none of the Bureau’s testing for the 2020 Census contemplated or evaluated the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census questionnaire, the Ross Memorandum claimed that “the citizenship question has been well tested” because it has been used in sample surveys, including the ACS. Ex. 1 at 2. However, this claim is contradicted by the Ross Memorandum itself, which dismissed evidence that noncitizens and Hispanics and Latinos had lower response rates to sample surveys asking about citizenship status on the ground that “the decennial census has differed significantly in nature from the sample surveys.” Id. at 3.
sufficiently reliable for use in voting rights litigation.”); Rodriguez v. Harris Cnty., 964 F. Supp. 2d 686, 727-28 (S.D. Tex. 2013); Meza v. Galvin, 322 F. Supp. 2d 52, 61-62 (D. Mass. 2004). 45 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census of Population and Housing History at 39 (Dec. 2009).
35

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 36 of 61
103. Furthermore, use and testing of the citizenship question in the context of the ACS or long-form sample surveys do not make the question “well tested” for purposes of the 2020 Census for several reasons. First, the Census Bureau’s Statistical Quality Standards require it to test not only the wording of questions in isolation, but also the order and context effects, the instructions, and the formatting of the entire questionnaire. Second, the experience with prior sample surveys will understate the extent of non-response because, as the Census Bureau’s own scientific advisory committee explained in a March 30, 2018 letter, the earlier sample surveys were conducted “in a different data collection context, in a different political climate, before antiimmigrant attitudes were as salient and consequential” as they are today.46 Third, the procedures for collecting data as part of the ACS survey differ from the decennial census procedures in ways that could impact how certain questions affect response rates and data quality. For example, the ACS is conducted only by experienced Bureau personnel whereas the much larger decennial census relies upon a cohort of temporary survey workers to count the entire U.S. population.
104. In the Memorandum, Secretary Ross claims that the former Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the Census Bureau under President George W. Bush confirmed that “no empirical data existed on the impact of a citizenship question on responses.” Ex. 1 at 3. But that official, Hermann Habermann, has since stated that he told Secretary Ross that he did not “think the case has been made that [the citizenship question] is so important that it’s worth endangering this fragile instrument.”47
46 Michael Wines, Census Bureau’s Own Expert Panel Rebukes Decision to Add Citizenship Question, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2018). 47 Jeffrey Mervis, Trump officials claim they can avoid 2020 census problems caused by controversial citizenship question. Experts are very skeptical. Science (April 13, 2018), http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/trump-officials-claim-they-can-avoid-2020-censusproblems-caused-controversial.
36

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 37 of 61
105. The Ross Memorandum also purports to rely on information from the Nielsen survey agency and consultations with its Senior Vice President for Data Science. Ex 1 at 3. For example, the Memorandum states that Nielsen found that adding sensitive questions to the ACS did not lower rsponse rates. But in fact, Nielsen apparently found that adding some sensitive questions—including for example on religion and sexuality—does depress response rates. Nielsen has issued a statement indicating that it “does not support the inclusion of a question on citizenship for the 2020 U.S. census because we believe its inclusion could lead to inaccuracies in the underlying data.”48
106. Ultimately, the Secretary decided to add an untested citizenship question to the 2020 Census despite his explicit admission that the Department did not know, and was unable to determine, the impact such a question would have on nonresponse rates and the potential undercounting of immigrants and other hard-to-count populations. The Ross Memorandum asserted that “no empirical data existed on the impact of a citizenship question on responses,” and the Department “is not able to determine definitively how inclusion of a citizenship question on the decennial census will impact responsiveness.” Id. at 3, 7.
107. In contrast to the nine years that the Census Bureau spent evaluating and testing the possible inclusion of a combined race and ethnicity question, the decision to add a citizenship question was made after only four months of consideration, almost all of which occurred after the Bureau’s internal deadline of December 31, 2017 for adding questions to the 2020 Census.
108. Having conducted no independent review of the value of CVAP data for VRA enforcement, and having made no findings concerning the impact on nonresponses, the
48 Id.
37

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 38 of 61
Secretary lacked any valid basis to evaluate and compare the potential benefits and harms of adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census at this late stage in the preparation process, after years of census pretesting had been completed and with the 2018 End-to-End Census Test already underway.
109. Nonetheless, the Secretary declared in the Ross Memorandum that the data would be “more complete and accurate,” and the “value” of a citizenship question “outweighs such concerns [about nonresponses]” and “is of greater importance than any adverse effect that may result,” regardless of its “impact on responses.” Id. at 7.
110. On March 29, 2018, the Census Bureau submitted its report (the “March 2018 Report”) to Congress pursuant to the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. § 141(f)(2), identifying the questions to be asked in the 2020 Census. See Ex. 2, attached. The March 2018 Report confirmed that the Census Bureau has made a final determination to include an additional question in the 2020 Census questionnaire asking respondents to provide U.S. citizenship information for each household member. Id. at 7. The March 2018 Report asserts, without explanation, that citizenship statistics “are essential for enforcing the Voting Rights Act and its protections against voting discrimination.” Id.
111. The Ross Memorandum asserts, and the March 2018 Report confirms, that the specific citizenship question used in the ACS survey will be included on the 2020 Census questionnaire. This question requires respondents not only to disclose whether they are citizens, but also requires them to answer whether they were born in United States territories, whether they were born “abroad” to U.S. parents, or if and when they were “naturalized.” Ex. 2 at 7. The March 2018 Report asserts that the Census Bureau only collects information that is “truly necessary.” Ex. 2 at 2. Yet neither the DOJ Letter, the Ross Memorandum, nor the March 2018
38

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 39 of 61
Report explain why determining the manner in which an individual acquired U.S. citizenship is relevant or necessary for enforcing the Voting Rights Act, or for any other purpose.
112. The Census Bureau’s determination to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 Census questionnaire contravenes the Bureau’s legal obligations as a federal statistical agency and violates the regulatory directives and standards that require the Bureau to design the decennial census to maximize response rates. Defendants failed to identify any valid basis for deviating from decades of consistent policy and practice. Without the mandatory pretesting of a citizenship question—which it is now too late to complete—the Bureau cannot correct those errors before the 2020 Census proceeds.
E. The Disproportionate Undercount That Will Result From Use of a Citizenship Question 113. The Ross Memorandum claimed to have found that “limited empirical
evidence exists about whether adding a citizenship question would decrease response rates materially.” Ex. 1 at 5. In fact, the evidence is compelling that the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of persons belonging to or sharing a household with certain demographic groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency (“LEPs”), and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin (the “Undercount Groups”).
114. Research and testing on census participation, including work conducted by the Bureau, have shown that the Undercount Groups are traditionally “hard to count” for purposes of the decennial census. This is in part because they are more likely to be suspicious about the purpose of the decennial census and the government’s use of census data. The Bureau itself has found that questions about citizenship in government surveys are especially “sensitive” and are likely to trigger and exacerbate these concerns about the confidentiality and use of
39

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 40 of 61
respondent data.49 The inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 Census is therefore expected to reduce participation and depress response rates among the Undercount Groups.
115. To the extent that the Bureau’s experience with the citizenship question in sample surveys is helpful in understanding its likely impact on the 2020 Census, the available data referred to in the Ross Memorandum actually substantiate concerns that a citizenship question will depress response rates among certain demographic groups. For example, the Bureau has measured the relative response rates for citizens and noncitizens to the 2000 shortform census questionnaire, which did not ask about citizenship status, and the 2000 long-form questionnaire, which did. For noncitizens, as the Ross Memorandum notes, the decline in the response rate to the long form relative to the short form was 3.3% greater than it was for citizens. In other words, noncitizens were disproportionately more non-responsive than citizens to a census survey that inquired about citizenship status. Similarly, in the ACS surveys conducted from 2013 through 2016, nonresponse rates for the specific question about citizenship were materially higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites, suggesting that Hispanics are less likely to respond to survey questions about citizenship.
116. Furthermore, the current political environment has substantially increased the risk of census nonresponse to a citizenship question among the Undercount Groups. Recent census field-testing has shown that these groups have become even more suspicious and distrustful of government efforts to collect personal data since President Trump took office in 2017.
49 U.S. Census Bureau, DS-16: Policy on Respondent Identification and Sensitive Topics in Dependent Interviewing (Dec. 9, 2014), https://www2.census.gov/foia/ds_policies/ds016.pdf.
40

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 41 of 61
117. In September 2017, the Bureau’s own Center for Survey Measurement (“CSM”) reported that survey-testing efforts undertaken by the Bureau in 2017 revealed an unprecedented climate of fear among certain hard-to-count populations, including noncitizens, immigrants, LEPs, and Latinos.50 Survey respondents repeatedly expressed concerns about the confidentiality and use of survey response data and fears related to ongoing issues involving immigration enforcement policy. CSM found that these concerns were raised to a much greater degree than in previous years.
118. Furthermore, such fears led many respondents to deliberately falsify survey responses or refuse to respond at all. In one instance, a Bureau field representative reported on her experience conducting a health survey interview (unrelated to the decennial census) that included questions about citizenship status. A Spanish-speaking respondent initially acknowledged that he was not a citizen, but then appeared to lie about his country of origin. When the field representative started asking about his year of entry into the United States, he stopped responding to her questions and eventually walked out and left the field representative alone in his apartment, which the representative noted “had never happened to her during an interview before.”51
119. In another set of interviews testing an internet self-response instrument in English and Spanish, numerous respondents “intentionally provided incomplete or incorrect information about household members due to concerns regarding confidentiality, particularly
50 Memorandum from Ctr. for Survey Measurement (CSM) to Assoc. Dir. for Research and Methodology (Sept. 20, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/2017-11/MemoRegarding-Respondent-Confidentiality-Concerns.pdf. 51 Id. at 5.
41

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 42 of 61
relating to perceived negative attitudes towards immigrants.”52 On the basis of its extensive research, CSM found that the “level of deliberate falsification of the household roster, and spontaneous mention of concerns regarding negative attitudes toward immigrants” was “largely unprecedented.”53
120. The Bureau itself concluded that the CSM findings demonstrated “an unprecedented groundswell in confidentiality and data-sharing concerns among immigrants or those who live with immigrants” that could “present a barrier to participation in the 2020 Census” and “impact data quality and coverage for the 2020 Census.”54 According to the Bureau, this is “[p]articularly troubling due to the disproportionate impact on hard-to-count [immigrant] populations.”55
121. In light of these findings, the Secretary’s determination to order the Bureau to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census is particularly arbitrary, capricious, and in violation of the Bureau’s fundamental obligations as a statistical agency. While failing to acknowledge or consider the Bureau’s own findings above, the Ross Memorandum openly admits that the Department has no idea what impact adding a question about citizenship to the 2020 Census will have on response rates among the Undercount Groups.
122. Since the issuance of the Ross Memorandum, Defendant Jarmin has publicly acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the inclusion of a citizenship question
52 Id. at 2. 53 Id. at 3. 54 See U.S. Census Bureau, Nat’l Advisory Comm. on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations, Respondent Confidentiality Concerns and Possible Effects on Response Rates and Data Quality for 2020 Census, 15 (Nov. 2, 2017), https://www2.census.gov/cac/nac/meetings/201711/Meyers-NAC-Confidentiality-Presentation.pdf. 55 Id.
42

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 43 of 61
will cause more than a “minimal” decline in 2020 Census participation, and that “in some communities, [the decline] might be important.”56 He further admitted that the decline in participation as a result of the citizenship question “would be largely felt in various sub-groups, in immigrant populations [and] Hispanic populations.”57 He also noted that the Census Bureau had recommended that “the best approach” to meet the DOJ’s request “would be to use administrative records” rather than adding a citizenship question.58 However, Secretary Ross rejected the Census Bureau’s recommendation.
F. Plaintiffs’ Injury Resulting From Defendants’ Unlawful Distortion of the 2020 Census 123. As explained above, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a
disproportionate undercount of individuals in the Undercount Groups. 124. According to recent ACS data, the population of Arizona has a higher
percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Arizona residents relative to the rest of the country.
125. Plaintiffs Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, and Alejandro Chavez reside in areas of Arizona in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of Arizona as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of these areas of Arizona relative to the rest of the state.
56 Hearing Before the House Appropriations Subcomm. on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies on Fiscal 2019 Budger Request for the Census Bureau, 115th Cong. 20 (Apr. 18, 2018) (statement of Ron Jarmin), https://plus.cq.com/doc/congressionaltranscripts5304446?3. 57 Id. at 23. 58 Id. at 13.
43

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 44 of 61
126. According to recent ACS data, the population of Prince George’s County, Maryland has a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than both the United States and Maryland as a whole. As a result, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Prince George’s County residents relative to the rest of the country and the rest of the state.
127. According to recent ACS data, the population of Texas has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Texas residents relative to the rest of the country.
128. Plaintiffs Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Virginia Garcia, Linda Rivas, Martha Sanchez, and Sonia Casarez Shafer reside in areas of Texas in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of Texas as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of these areas of Texas relative to the rest of the state.
129. According to recent ACS data, the population of Nevada has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Nevada residents relative to the rest of the country.
130. Plaintiff Michael Kagan resides in an area of Nevada in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of Nevada as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a
44

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 45 of 61
citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of this area of Nevada relative to the rest of the state.
131. According to recent ACS data, the population of Florida has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of Florida residents relative to the rest of the country.
132. Plaintiffs Yamile Labori and Lazara Yoelvis Magadan reside in areas of Florida in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of Florida as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of these areas of Florida relative to the rest of the state.
133. According to recent ACS data, the population of California has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the United States as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of California residents relative to the rest of the country.
134. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Buchanan, Jacob Cunningham, and Maegan Ortiz reside in areas of California in which, according to recent ACS data, the population has a higher percentage of individuals belonging to Undercount Groups than the population of California as a whole. Consequently, the inclusion of a citizenship question will result in a disproportionate undercount of residents of these areas of California relative to the rest of the state.
135. Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Fourteenth Amendment, the decennial census population counts are used to determine the number of congressional representatives apportioned to each state. Based on recent population
45

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 46 of 61
growth trends, there is a substantial likelihood that Arizona, Florida, and Texas will each gain additional congressional seats following the 2020 Census. The disproportionate undercount that will result from use of a citizenship question in the 2020 Census is expected to deprive these states of at least one additional congressional seat. Although, based on recent population growth trends, Nevada is more likely than not to maintain the same number of congressional seats following the 2020 Census, the disproportionate undercount that will result from use of a citizenship question nonetheless creates a significant risk that Nevada will suffer a reduction in the number of congressional seats that would otherwise be apportioned to the state.
136. Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, Maryland, and Texas each use decennial census data to draw congressional and state legislative districts of equal population. Plaintiffs reside in areas of those states where the residents will be disproportionately undercounted relative to the rest of the state due to the inclusion of a citizenship question. Thus, if a citizenship question is used in the 2020 Census, the drawing of “equal population” districts based on 2020 Census data will result in the over-population of Plaintiffs’ congressional and state legislative districts, thereby diluting Plaintiffs’ votes.
137. As described above, see supra ¶ 43, U.S. census population data are essential in determining the federal government’s allocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in funding to states and localities under more than 130 federal programs.
138. The disproportionate undercount caused by the use of a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire will reduce the amount of these federal funds that are distributed to Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas, to the localities within these states where Plaintiffs reside, and to Prince George’s County, including for programs and projects on which Plaintiffs directly rely.
46

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 47 of 61
139. For example, under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the federal government distributes funding to school districts to enhance teaching and learning outcomes in public schools. In fiscal year 2016, the program distributed more than $15 billion, including $333.8 million to schools in Arizona, $1.77 billion to schools in California, $813 million to schools in Florida, $120 million to schools in Nevada, $1.38 billion to schools in Texas, and $38.6 million to schools in Prince George’s County. The amount of funding provided to a school district is determined, in part, by the number of individuals and school-age children counted in the decennial census.
140. Plaintiffs Jose Moreno and Alejandro Chavez send their children to public schools that receive Title I funding. The population of the school district in which Plaintiff Moreno’s children attend school has a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than the entire populations of the United States and Arizona, respectively. The population of the school district in which Plaintiff Chavez’s children attend school has a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than the entire population of the United States. A disproportionate undercount in these school districts in the 2020 Census will therefore result in reduced Title I funding for schools in those districts.
141. Plaintiffs Catherine and Nnabugwu Nwosu and Plaintiff T. Carter Ross send their children to public schools in Prince George’s County that receive Title I funding. A disproportionate undercount in Prince George’s County in the 2020 Census will result in reduced Title I funding for schools in the county.
142. Plaintiffs Sarah Bryan, Linda Rivas, and Sonia Casarez Shafer send their children to public schools that receive Title I funding. The populations of the school districts in which these children attend school have a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than the
47

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 48 of 61
entire populations of the United States and Texas, respectively. A disproportionate undercount in these school districts in the 2020 Census will therefore result in reduced Title I funding for schools in those districts.
143. Plaintiff Michael Kagan sends his daughter to a public school that receives Title I funding. The population of the school district in which Plaintiff Kagan’s daughter attends school has a higher percentage of Undercount Groups than the entire populations of the United States and Nevada, respectively. A disproportionate undercount in this school district in the 2020 Census will therefore result in reduced Title I funding for schools in the district.
144. Plaintiff Yamile Labori sends her daughter to a public school that receives Title I funding. The population of the school district in which Plaintiff Labori’s daughter attends school has a higher percentage of some Undercount Groups than the entire populations of the United States and Florida, respectively. A disproportionate undercount in this school district in the 2020 Census is, therefore, substantially likely to result in reduced Title I funding for schools in the district.
145. Plaintiff Maegan Ortiz sends her daughter to a public school that receives Title I funding. The population of the school district in which Plaintiff Ortiz’s daughter attends school has a higher percentage of some Undercount Groups than the entire populations of the United States and California, respectively. A disproportionate undercount in this school district in the 2020 Census is, therefore, substantially likely to result in reduced Title I funding for schools in the district.
146. The allocation of federal transportation funding, including funds available under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program and the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs, depends on the decennial census population
48

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 49 of 61
count. The amount of funding provided to a state under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs is based on the population of urbanized areas in that state compared to those of other states, as determined by the decennial census. The amount of funding provided to an area within a state under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program is based, in part, on the relative share of the population in that area, as determined by the decennial census.
147. Plaintiffs Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, and Alejandro Chavez regularly drive on highways and roads in Arizona, including the areas of the state in which they reside. A disproportionate undercount in the areas of the state in which Plaintiffs McCune, Moreno, and Chavez reside will result in reduced transportation funding in those areas under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in Arizona in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Arizona under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs.
148. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz, Michael Kravitz, Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, T. Carter Ross, and Joanne Wilson regularly drive on highways and roads, and use other modes of transportation, in Prince George’s County, Maryland. A disproportionate undercount in Prince George’s County in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Prince George’s County under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs and the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.
149. Plaintiffs Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Virginia Garcia, Linda Rivas, Martha Sanchez, and Sonia Casarez Shafer regularly drive on highways and roads in Texas, including the areas of the state in which they reside. A disproportionate undercount in the areas of the state in which Plaintiffs Alexander, Berman, Bryan, Garcia, Rivas,
49

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 50 of 61
Sanchez, and Shafer reside will result in reduced transportation funding in those areas under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in Texas in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Texas under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs.
150. Plaintiff Michael Kagan regularly drives on highways and roads in Nevada, including the area of the state in which he resides. A disproportionate undercount in the area of the state in which Plaintiff Kagan resides will result in reduced transportation funding in this area under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in Nevada in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Nevada under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs.
151. Plaintiffs Yamile Labori and Lazara Yoelvis Magadan regularly drive on highways and roads in Flordia, including in the areas of the state in which they reside. A disproportionate undercount in the areas of the state in which Plaintiffs Labori and Magadan reside will result in reduced transportation funding in those areas under the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in Florida in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in Florida under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs.
152. Plaintiffs Jacob Cunningham and Elizabeth Buchanan regularly drive on highways and roads in California, including in the areas of the state in which they reside. Plaintiff Maegan Ortiz regularly uses public transportation in and around Los Angeles County. A disproportionate undercount in the areas of the state in which Plaintiffs Cunningham, Buchanan, and Ortiz reside will result in reduced transportation funding in those areas under the Surface
50

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 51 of 61
Transportation Block Grant Program. A disproportionate undercount in urbanized areas in California in the 2020 Census will result in reduced transportation funding in California under the Metropolitan and Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning Programs.
153. Medicaid provides health coverage to eligible low-income adults, children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states. The amount of federal government reimbursement a state receives under Medicaid is based on the per capita income of the state compared to the per capita income of the United States as a whole. A higher state per capita income results in a lower federal reimbursement. The calculation of a state’s per capita income depends, in part, on the population of the state as determined by the decennial census. A disproportionate undercount in Texas will falsely inflate the state’s per capita income, result in reduced federal Medicaid funding for Texas, and likely impact Medicaid beneficiaries’ health care benefits and costs.
154. The Federal Foster Care Program, administered under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, helps to provide safe and stable out-of-home care for children until they can safely be returned home or are placed with adoptive families. The Program provides funds to states for monthly maintenance payments for the daily care and supervision of eligible children, administrative costs to manage the program, and training for staff and foster care providers. The amount of funds a state receives from the federal government under the Federal Foster Care Program is based, inter alia, on the per capita income of the state compared to the per capita income of the United States as a whole. A higher state per capita income results in a lower federal reimbursement. The calculation of a state’s per capita income depends, in part, on the population of the state as determined by the decennial census. A disproportionate undercount in Texas will falsely inflate the state’s per capita income, result in reduced Federal Foster Care
51

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 52 of 61
Program funding for Texas, and likely impact the maintenance payments and training and support services available to the Program’s beneficiaries.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
(Violation of Census Clause) 155. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully made herein. 156. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, require that the Census Bureau conduct an “actual Enumeration” of “the whole number of persons in each State.” 157. The federal government must conduct the decennial census in a manner “consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation.” Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 804 (1992). The paramount objective of the Census Clause, as amended, is to ensure that all “persons” residing in each state are counted in the decennial census, regardless of their citizenship status. Decisions regarding the conduct of the census must therefore bear “a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population.” Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1, 20 (1996). 158. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire without regard to its potential to cause a disproportionate undercount of certain demographic groups is inconsistent with the constitutional purposes of the census and does not bear a reasonable relationship to the accomplishment of an actual enumeration of the population. 159. The inclusion of a citizenship question as part of the 2020 Census will result in a disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin.
52

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 53 of 61
160. This undercount will disproportionately affect the states and/or localities in which Plaintiffs reside by, inter alia, depriving those states of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives to which they are entitled and causing under-allocations of federal funding to those states and/or localities.
161. Plaintiffs Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, and Alejandro Chavez will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Arizona of an additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
162. Plaintiffs Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, T. Carter Ross, and Joanne Wilson will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their localities, including for programs on which they directly rely. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz and Michael Kravitz will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will reduce federal funding to their locality, including for programs on which they directly rely.
163. Plaintiffs Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Virginia Garcia, Linda Rivas, Martha Sanchez, and Sonia Casarez Shafer will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Texas of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
164. Plaintiff Michael Kagan will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute his vote by overpopulating his congressional and legislative
53

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 54 of 61
districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to his state and locality, including for programs on which he directly relies.
165. Plaintiffs Yamile Labori and Lazara Yoelvis Magadan will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Florida of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
166. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Buchanan, Jacob Cunningham, and Maegan Ortiz will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving California of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
COUNT II (Violation of Equal Protection Under the Fifth Amendment) 167. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully made herein. 168. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government provide equal protection of its laws and protects individuals living in the United States from impermissible discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and citizenship status. 169. Defendants’ addition of the citizenship question to the Decennial Census violates the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection requirement because, in adding the citizenship question, Defendants acted with discriminatory intent towards Latinos, Asian-Americans, immigrant communities of color, and noncitizens.
54

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 55 of 61
170. The inclusion of a citizenship question as part of the 2020 Census will result in a disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin.
171. This undercount will disproportionately affect the states and/or localities in which Plaintiffs reside by, inter alia, depriving those states of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives to which they are entitled and causing under-allocations of federal funding to those states and/or localities.
172. Plaintiffs Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, and Alejandro Chavez will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Arizona of an additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
173. Plaintiffs Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, T. Carter Ross, and Joanne Wilson will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their localities, including for programs on which they directly rely. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz and Michael Kravitz will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will reduce federal funding to their locality, including for programs on which they directly rely.
174. Plaintiffs Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Virginia Garcia, Linda Rivas, Martha Sanchez, and Sonia Casarez Shafer will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Texas of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their
55

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 56 of 61
congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
175. Plaintiff Michael Kagan will be harmed because the disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute his vote by overpopulating his congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to his state and locality, including for programs on which he directly relies.
176. Plaintiffs Yamile Labori and Lazara Yoelvis Magadan will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
177. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Buchanan, Jacob Cunningham, and Maegan Ortiz will be harmed by the disproportionate undercount because it will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving California of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
COUNT III (Violation of Administrative Procedure Act) 178. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations above as if fully made herein. 179. The Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) requires courts to hold unlawful and set aside any final agency action that is, inter alia, “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” id. § 706(2)(A); “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity,” id. § 706(2)(B); “in excess of statutory
56

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 57 of 61
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” id. § 706(2)(C); or “without observance of procedure required by law,” id. § 706(2)(D).
180. Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire, as set forth in the March 26, 2018 Ross Memorandum and confirmed by the Census Bureau in its March 29, 2018 Report to Congress, constitutes final agency action.
181. Defendants’ decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 Census questionnaire is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority; and without observance of procedure required by law.
182. Defendants, inter alia, failed to conduct an adequate independent review of the need to collect citizenship data through the decennial census alleged in the DOJ Letter; failed to provide a reasoned explanation for why such data are necessary to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; failed to reasonably assess the impact of including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire on the response rates of various population groups; departed, without any reasoned basis, from the Bureau’s own policy and practice of not asking about the citizenship status of every individual; departed, without any reasoned basis, from the Bureau’s own statistical quality standards; made its decision regarding the inclusion of a citizenship question based on improper political considerations; violated binding law and regulations regarding statistical collection procedures and methods; breached the Constitutional duty to conduct an “actual Enumeration” of the population; and failed to identify or report to Congress any new circumstances that could justify modification of Defendants’ prior decision not to include citizenship as a subject matter for the 2020 Census, as required under 13 U.S.C.
57

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 58 of 61
§ 141(f)(3). Defendants’ action is therefore unlawful and must be set aside pursuant to APA § 706(2)(A)-(D).
183. Defendants’ determination to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census questionnaire will result in a disproportionate undercount of certain population groups, including immigrants, noncitizens, those with limited English proficiency, and individuals of Hispanic or Latino origin, in the 2020 Census.
184. Plaintiffs Richard McCune, Jose Moreno, and Alejandro Chavez will suffer a legal wrong and be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Arizona of an additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
185. Plaintiffs Catherine Nwosu, Nnabugwu Nwosu, T. Carter Ross, and Joanne Wilson will suffer a legal wrong and be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to their localities, including for programs on which they directly rely. Plaintiffs Robyn Kravitz and Michael Kravitz will suffer a legal wrong and be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will reduce federal funding to their locality, including for programs on which they directly rely.
186. Plaintiffs Diana Alexander, Lauren Rachel Berman, Sarah Bryan, Virginia Garcia, Linda Rivas, Martha Sanchez, and Sonia Casarez Shafer will suffer a legal wrong and
58

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 59 of 61
will be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Texas of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
187. Plaintiff Michael Kagan will suffer a legal wrong and will be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute his vote by overpopulating his congressional and legislative districts, and (ii) reduce federal funding to his state and locality, including for programs on which he directly relies.
188. Plaintiffs Yamile Labori and Lazara Yoelvis Magadan will suffer a legal wrong and will be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving Florida of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
189. Plaintiffs Elizabeth Buchanan, Jacob Cunningham, and Maegan Ortiz will suffer a legal wrong and will be adversely affected by the Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census because the resulting disproportionate undercount will, inter alia, (i) dilute their vote by depriving California of at least one additional congressional representative, (ii) dilute their vote by overpopulating their congressional and legislative districts, and (iii) reduce federal funding to their state and localities, including for programs on which they directly rely.
59

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 60 of 61
190. Plaintiffs will therefore be harmed by Defendants’ unlawful action unless such action is set aside pursuant to § 706 of the APA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 191. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
a) Declare that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the questionnaire used for all households and individuals in the 2020 Census is unauthorized by, and contrary to, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution;
b) Declare that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the questionnaire used for all households and individuals in the 2020 Census is unauthorized by, and contrary to, the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
c) Declare that Defendants’ decision to add a citizenship question to the questionnaire used for all households and individuals in the 2020 Census is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction and authority; and without observance of procedure required by law, in violation of § 706(2)(A)-(D) of the APA;
d) Enjoin Defendants and all those acting in concert with them from including a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire, and from taking any irreversible steps to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census questionnaire;
60

Case 8:18-cv-01041-GJH Document 86 Filed 12/28/18 Page 61 of 61

e)
f) Date: December 4, 2018

Award Plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
_____/s/_______________
Daniel Grant (Bar Number: 19659) Shankar Duraiswamy* Dustin Cho* Bianca Nunes* Tina M. Thomas* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001-4956 Tel: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 662-6302 dgrant@cov.com sduraiswamy@cov.com bnunes@cov.com tthomas@cov.com
P. Benjamin Duke* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Tel: (212) 841-1000 Fax: (212) 841-1010 pbduke@cov.com
Lawrence A. Hobel* COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111-5356 Tel: (415) 591-6000 Fax: (415) 591-6091 lhobel@cov.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
* Admitted pro hac vice

61