Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 1 of 32
U.S. District Court Northern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:18−cv−00772−RDP

Alabama, State of et al v. United States Department of Commerce et al Assigned to: Judge R David Proctor Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/21/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 899 Administrative Procedure Act / Review or Appeal of Agency Decision Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Alabama, State of

represented by Brad A. Chynoweth STATE OF ALABAMA Office of the Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130 334.242.7997 Fax: 334.353.8440 Email: brad.chynoweth@alabamaag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brenton Merrill Smith OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA P.O. Box 300152 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 334−353−4336 Fax: 334−353−8400 Email: Brenton.Smith@AlabamaAG.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edmund Gerard LaCour OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36104 334−242−7300 Fax: 334−242−4891 Email: elacour@ago.state.al.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric Michael Palmer OFFICE OF THE ALABAMA ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36104 334−242−7300 Fax: 334−242−4891 Email: mnewman@ago.state.al.us TERMINATED: 08/15/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James W Davis OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 2 of 32

501 Washington Avenue P O Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130−0152 334−242−7300 Fax: 334−353−8400 Email: jim.davis@alabamaag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Steven Troy Marshall OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−242−7300 Fax: 334−242−4891 Email: smarshall@ago.state.al.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Winfield J Sinclair OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue PO Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130−0152 334−353−9110 Fax: 334−353−8440 Email: winfield.sinclair@alabamaag.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Morris J Brooks, Jr

represented by Morris J Brooks, Jr 2101 W Clinton Avenue Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35805 256−355−9400 Email: Marshall.Yates@mail.house.gov PRO SE

V.
Defendant
United States Department of Commerce

represented by Brad P. Rosenberg U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 202−514−3374 Fax: 202−616−8460 Email: brad.rosenberg@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander V Sverdlov UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L St., NW Washington, DC 20005 202−305−8550 Email: alexander.v.sverdlov@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 3 of 32

Defendant Wilbur L Ross in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce
Defendant Bureau of the Census an agency within the United States Department of Commerce
Defendant Ron S Jarmin in his capacity as performing the non−exclusive functionsand duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau

represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander V Sverdlov (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander V Sverdlov (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alexander V Sverdlov (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant Diana Martinez

represented by Denise Marie Hulett MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 So. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 916−642−6352 Fax: 213−629−0266 Email: dhulett@maldef.org TERMINATED: 01/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James Uriah Blacksher JAMES U. BLACKSHER, ATTORNEY P O Box 636 Birmingham, AL 35201 205−591−7238 Fax: 866−845−4395 Email: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea E. Senteno MALDEF 1016 16th Street, NW, Suite 100 Washington, DC 20036 202−293−2828 Fax: 202−293−2849

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 4 of 32

Email: asenteno@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 So. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Email: jgomez@maldef.org TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 110 Broadway, Suite 300 San Antonio, TX 78205 210−224−5476 Fax: 210−224−5382 Email: nperales@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 S. Spring St., 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 213−629−2512 Email: tsaenz@maldef.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still EDWARD STILL LAW FIRM LLC 429 Green Springs Hwy STE 161−304 Birmingham, AL 35209 205−320−2882 Fax: 205−320−2882 Email: Still@votelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Raisa Sequeira

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 5 of 32

Intervenor Defendant Saulo Corona

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Irving Medina

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Joey Cardenas

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 6 of 32

Intervenor Defendant Florinda P. Chavez
Intervenor Defendant Chicanos Por La Causa

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina Perales (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 7 of 32

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant San Jose' California, City of

represented by Ming Ming Yang DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−909−6422 Fax: 212−909−6836 Email: mmyang@debevoise.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robin Thurston DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION 1333 H St .NW Washington, DC 20005 202−701−1775 Email: rthurston@democracyforward.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anil A Mujumdar ZARZAUR MUJUMDAR & DEBROSSE − TRIAL LAWYERS 2332 2nd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 205−983−7985 Fax: 888−505−0523 Email: anil@zarzaur.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorian Lawrence Spence LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1401 New York Ave. (Suite 400) Washington, DC 20019 202−663−8324 Email: dspence@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ezra Rosenberg LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 1500 K Street, NW, Ste. 900 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8345 Email: erosenberg@lawyerscommittee.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jyotin Hamid DEVEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−909−6000

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 8 of 32

Fax: 212−909−6836 Email: jhamid@debevoise.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Lauren M Dolecki DEVEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 212−909−6000 Fax: 212−909−6836 Email: lmdolecki@debevoise.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Hartmann Rand ZARZAUR 2332 2nd Ave. N. Birmingham, AL 35203 205−983−7985 Email: paul@zarzaur.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ryan M Kusmin DEVEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP 801 Pennsylvani Avenue, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20004 202−383−8000 Fax: 202−383−8118 Email: rmkusmin@debevoise.com TERMINATED: 01/21/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Santa Clara, California, County of

represented by Robert D Segall COPELAND FRANCO SCREWS & GILL PA 444 South Perry Street P O Box 347 Montgomery, AL 36101−0347 334−834−1180 Fax: 334−834−3172 Email: segall@copelandfranco.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Anil A Mujumdar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Danielle Luce Goldstein COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding St., 9th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5906 Email: danielle.goldstein@cco.sccgov.org TERMINATED: 05/29/2019 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan Weissglass LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN WEISSGLASS 410 12th Street, Suite 250−B Oakland, CA 94607

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 9 of 32

510−836−4200 Email: jonathan@weissglass.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcelo Quinones OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5997 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: marcelo.quinones@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Raphael N Rajendra OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 70 W. Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110 408−299−5900 Fax: 408−292−7240 Email: raphael.rajendra@cco.sccgov.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant King County, Washington

represented by Anil A Mujumdar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dorian Lawrence Spence (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Paul Hartmann Rand (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Smith Vance , III THE BLOOMSTON FIRM 3829 Glenwood Avenue Birmingham, AL 35205 205−540−2074 Email: robert@thebloomstonfirm.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of New York

represented by Joseph Wardenski NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−8441 Email: joseph.wardenski@ag.ny.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joyce White Vance 101 Paul W. Bryant Drive Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 205−348−5440 Email: attorneyjoycevance@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 10 of 32

Intervenor Defendant State of California

Ajay Saini OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−6057 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amanda Marie Meyer STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−6225 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry A Ragsdale SIROTE & PERMUTT PC 2311 Highland Avenue South P O Box 55727 Birmingham, AL 35255−5727 205−930−5100 Fax: 205−212−2932 Email: bragsdale@sirote.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elena Stacy Goldstein OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10005 212−416−6201 Fax: 212−416−6030 Email: elena.goldstein@ag.ny.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Morgan NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−6276 Fax: 212−416−6007 Email: Elizabeth.Morgan@ag.ny.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Colangelo OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 212−416−6057 Email: matthew.colangelo@ag.ny.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 11 of 32

Intervenor Defendant State of Colorado
Intervenor Defendant State of Connecticut
Intervenor Defendant District of Columbia
Intervenor Defendant

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gabrielle D Boutin CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1300 I Street, Suite 125 PO Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244 916−210−6053 Email: gabrielle.boutin@doj.ca.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
R Matthew Wise CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1300 I Street Suite 125 PO Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244 916−210−6053 Email: Matthew.Wise@doj.ca.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 12 of 32

State of Illinois

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Massachusetts

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ann E Lynch MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 617−727−2200 Email: ann.lynch@mass.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Miranda M Cover MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 617−963−2986 Fax: 617−727−5765 Email: mercy.cover@mass.gov PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Minnesota

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Nevada

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 13 of 32

State of New Jersey

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of New Mexico

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Oregon

represented by J. Nicole DeFever OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: 971−673−5000 Email: nicole.defever@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Rhode Island

represented by J. Nicole DeFever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Vermont

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 14 of 32

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Virginia

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant State of Washington

represented by J. Nicole DeFever (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant
Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Central Falls, Rhode Island

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Chicago, Illinois

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 15 of 32

Hidalgo County, Texas

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Monterey County, California

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant New York, New York

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Providence, Rhode Island

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Seattle, Washington

represented by Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant United States Conference of Mayors

represented by

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 16 of 32

Joyce White Vance (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Barry A Ragsdale (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Atlanta, Georgia, City of

represented by Anil A Mujumdar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert Smith Vance , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Defendant Arlington County, Virginia

represented by Anil A Mujumdar (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amicus
Immigration Reform Law Institute Immigration Reform Law Institute 25 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 232−5590

represented by Christopher J Hajec IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE 25 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 202−232−5590 Fax: 202−464−3590 Email: chajec@irli.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael M Hethmon IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE 25 Massachusetts Avenue NW Suite 335 Washington, DC 20001 202−232−5590 Fax: 202−464−3590 Email: mhethmon@irli.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen W Williams FOXTROT LFC 1321 Gunter Avenue Guntersville, AL 35976 256−582−2905 Email: stephen@thinkfoxtrot.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Joey Cardenas

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 17 of 32

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Diana Martinez

represented by Denise Marie Hulett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2020 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Raisa Sequeira

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 18 of 32

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Irving Medina

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Florinda P. Chavez

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Saulo Corona

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 19 of 32

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cross Claimant Chicanos Por La Causa

represented by James Uriah Blacksher (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Andrea E. Senteno (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia A. Gomez (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas A Saenz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W Edward Still (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Cross Defendant Bureau of the Census an agency within the United States Department of Commerce
Cross Defendant Ron S Jarmin in his capacity as performing the non−exclusive functionsand duties of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau
Cross Defendant Wilbur L Ross in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce
Cross Defendant United States Department of Commerce

represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Brad P. Rosenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/21/2018

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce (Filing fee $ 400. 5/22/2018 B4601089151), filed by Alabama, State of.(KAM) (Entered: 05/23/2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 20 of 32

05/21/2018 05/23/2018 05/24/2018 06/15/2018 07/12/2018 07/12/2018 07/17/2018 07/17/2018
07/17/2018
07/18/2018
07/19/2018 07/19/2018 07/19/2018
07/20/2018

2 Summons Issued as to Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General delivered to plaintiff for service (KAM) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
3 NOTICE by Alabama, State of re 1 Complaint (correction to signature page) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Corrected Signature Page)(Sinclair, Winfield) (Entered: 05/23/2018)
4 Summons Issued as to United States Department of Commerce, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General del to plaitniff (KAM, ) (Entered: 05/24/2018)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by State of Alabama and Morris J Brooks, Jr. Wilbur L Ross served on 6/4/2018. (JLC) Modified on 6/15/2018 (SAC ). (Entered: 06/15/2018)
6 MOTION to Intervene by Diana Martinez, Raisa Sequeira, Saulo Corona, Irving Medina, Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit re notice to parties, # 2 Exhibit Memo in Support, # 3 Exhibit Proposed Answer, # 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Still, W) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
7 ORDER this matter is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Intervene 6 , The parties SHALL brief the issues raised by the Motion in accordance with Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this order as if fully set out herein. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/12/20158. (KAM) (Entered: 07/12/2018)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by Brad P. Rosenberg on behalf of All Defendants (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
9 MOTION to Intervene by City of San Jose and King County. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Answer, # 2 Exhibit B: Declaration of Dorian Spence, # 3 Exhibit C: Declaration of Danielle Goldstein, # 4 Exhibit D: Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 5 Exhibit E: Declaration of Dwight Dively, # 6 Exhibit F: Declaration of David Sykes, # 7 Exhibit G: Proposed Order)(Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
10 MOTION for Limited Admission by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Blacksher declaration, # 2 Exhibit Still declaration, # 3 Exhibit Gomez declaration, # 4 Exhibit Hulett declaration, # 5 Exhibit Saenz declaration, # 6 Exhibit Senteno declaration, # 7 Text of Proposed Order Proposed order)(Still, W) (Entered: 07/17/2018)
11 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on the Opposed Motion to Intervene 9 filed by County of Santa Clara, California, King County, Washington, and the City of San Jose, California. Interested parties are REMINDED to brief the Motion 9 in accordance with the deadlines set in Exhibit B 7 . Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/18/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
12 CERTIFICATE of Counsel re 6 MOTION to Intervene by James Uriah Blacksher on behalf of Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira (Blacksher, James) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
13 MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Unopposed) by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
14 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. 13 For good cause shown, and in light of Plaintiffs' consent to the extension, Defendants' Motion 13 is GRANTED. Defendants SHALL answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or before September 13, 2018 Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/19/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
15 RESPONSE to Motion re 6 MOTION to Intervene , 9 MOTION to Intervene filed by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 07/20/2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 21 of 32

07/20/2018 07/23/2018 07/23/2018 07/25/2018 07/25/2018 07/25/2018
07/26/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018
07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018 07/27/2018
07/30/2018

16 Opposition to re 6 , 9 Motions to Intervene filed by Alabama, State of. (Sinclair, Winfield) (Entered: 07/20/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3137529. (Spence, Dorian) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $200, receipt number B4601090751 (KAM) (Entered: 07/24/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3139281. (Frimann, Nora) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
17 REPLY to Response to Motion re 9 MOTION to Intervene filed by City of San Jose and King County. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
18 REPLY Brief filed by Intervenor Defendants Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira re: 16 Opposition (other) filed by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. (Still, W) (Entered: 07/25/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3140087 (ALND B4601090822). (Doyle, J) Modified on 7/26/2018 (KEK). (Entered: 07/26/2018)
19 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert D Segall on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 2 Affidavit A. Mujumdar Declaration, # 3 Affidavit J. Hamid, # 4 Affidavit R. Kusmin Declaration, # 5 Affidavit L. Dolecki, # 6 Affidavit M. Yang Declaration, # 7 Affidavit E. Rosenberg Declaration, # 8 Affidavit D. Spence Declaration, # 9 Affidavit J. R. Doyle Declaration, # 10 Affidavit N. Frimann Declaration, # 11 Affidavit J. Guzman, # 12 Affidavit R. Thurston Declaration, # 13 Affidavit J. Lewis)(Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141865. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141873. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141906. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141911. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141915. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141919. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141922. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3141924. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
21 MOTION for Limited Admission Pro Hac Vice by Santa Clara, California, County of. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Robert D. Segall, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Danielle Goldstein, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Greta Hansen, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of James Williams, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Jonathan Weissglass, # 6 Exhibit Declaration of Laura Trice, # 7 Exhibit Declaration of Marcelo Quinones)(Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
22 TEXT ORDER−This matter is before the court on the Motion for Admission of Attorneys Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of attorneys Thomas A. Saenz, Denise M. Hulett, Andrea Senteno, and Julia A. Gomez. 10 The Motion 10 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on /30/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 07/30/2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 22 of 32

07/30/2018
07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018 07/30/2018
07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 07/31/2018 08/01/2018 08/01/2018 08/03/2018
08/03/2018 08/07/2018 08/07/2018 08/07/2018

23 TEXT ORDER−This matter is before the court on the Motion for Admission of Attorneys Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of attorneys Jyotin Hamid, Ryan M. Kusmin, Lauren M. Dolecki, Ming Ming Yang, Ezra D. Rosenberg, Dorian L. Spence, Richard Doyle, Nora Frimann, Javier M. Guzman, Robin F. Thurston, and John T, Lewis. 20 The Motion 20 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/30/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142274. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142280. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142299. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142302. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142304. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3142334. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
24 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion for Admission of Attorneys Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of attorneys James R. Williams, Greta S. Hansen, Danielle L. Goldstein, Marcelo Quinones, Laura S. Trice, and Jonathan Weisglass. 21 The Motion 21 is GRANTED.Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/30/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 07/30/2018)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Weissglass on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Weissglass, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Denise Marie Hulett on behalf of Diana Martinez (Hulett, Denise) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
27 NOTICE by Santa Clara, California, County of Submission of New Decision in Support of Applicants' Opposed Motion to Intervene (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert D Segall on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 07/31/2018)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by Danielle Luce Goldstein on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Goldstein, Danielle) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by Marcelo Quinones on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Quinones, Marcelo) (Entered: 08/01/2018)
31 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on the pending Motions to Intervene 6 9 . The court intends to set these motions for oral argument, but will not do so until after the federal Defendants file their response to the Complaint. The response from the federal Defendants is currently due on September 13, 2018. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/3/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Julia A. Gomez on behalf of Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira (Gomez, Julia) (Entered: 08/03/2018)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Ming Ming Yang on behalf of San Jose' California, City of (Yang, Ming Ming) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Lauren M Dolecki on behalf of San Jose' California, City of (Dolecki, Lauren) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
35 NOTICE of Appearance by Ryan M Kusmin on behalf of San Jose' California, City of (Kusmin, Ryan) (Entered: 08/07/2018)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 23 of 32

08/07/2018 08/08/2018 08/10/2018 08/15/2018 09/12/2018 09/12/2018 11/01/2018
11/02/2018 11/05/2018
11/13/2018 11/16/2018 11/20/2018 11/21/2018
11/27/2018

36 NOTICE of Appearance by Jyotin Hamid on behalf of San Jose' California, City of (Hamid, Jyotin) (Entered: 08/07/2018)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrea E. Senteno on behalf of Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira (Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 08/08/2018)
38 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Alabama, State of. (Palmer, Eric) (Entered: 08/10/2018)
39 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on the Motion to Withdraw 38 filed by attorney Eric Palmer. The motion to withdraw 38 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate attorney Palmer.Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/15/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 08/15/2018)
40 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint (Unopposed) by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
41 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on Defendants' Second Unopposed Motion for an Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint. 40 . For good cause shown, the Motion 40 is GRANTED. Defendants SHALL file a response to the Complaint on or before November 13, 2018. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 9/12/208. (KAM) (Entered: 09/12/2018)
42 TEXT ORDER; "This case is before the court on two pending Motions to Intervene. [6, 9]. This matter is SET for a hearing on Monday, November 19, 2018 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7A of the Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, 1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Additionally, on or before November 13, 2018, the parties SHALL file a joint report addressing other relevant pending litigation and the status of those actions." Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/1/2018. (JLC) (Entered: 11/01/2018)
43 MOTION to Continue (State by Alabama, State of. (Sinclair, Winfield) (Entered: 11/02/2018)
44 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on the State of Alabama's Unopposed Motion to Continue Intervention Hearing. 43 . For good cause shown, the Motion 43 is GRANTED. The hearing originally scheduled for November 19, 2018 is RESCHEDULED for Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 7A of the Hugo L. Black United States Courthouse, 1729 5th Avenue North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Accordingly, on November 27, 2018, the parties SHALL file a joint report addressing other relevant pending litigation and the status of those actions. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/5/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
45 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 11/13/2018)
46 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas A Saenz on behalf of Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira (Saenz, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2018)
47 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 45 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Alabama, State of. (Sinclair, Winfield) (Entered: 11/20/2018)
48 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on the State's Motion for Additional Time. 47 The Motion requests an extension of time for (1) Plaintiffs to respond to the pending Motion to Dismiss 45 , and (2) Defendants to file a reply. The Motion 47 is GRANTED. Plaintiffs SHALL respond to the Motion to Dismiss 45 on or before January 25, 2019. Defendants may reply on or before February 25, 2019. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/21/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 11/21/2018)
49 TEXT ORDER−The upcoming hearing on the pending Motions to Intervene [6,9], currently scheduled for December 4, 2018, is CONTINUED generally and will be

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 24 of 32

11/27/2018 11/28/2018
11/28/2018
11/29/2018 12/13/2018 12/13/2018 12/13/2018
12/26/2018 12/27/2018
01/02/2019
01/04/2019 01/04/2019 01/05/2019

reset at a later date. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/27/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
50 STATUS REPORT re: Other Pending Litigation and the Status of Those Actions by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. filed by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
51 MOTION for Limited Admission of Nina Perales by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Blacksher decl, # 2 Exhibit B − Still decl, # 3 Exhibit C − Perales decl, # 4 Exhibit D − Cert of good standing, # 5 Text of Proposed Order)(Still, W) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
52 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on Attorney Nina Perales' Motion for Limited Admission. 51 . The Motion 51 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. On or before December 3, 2018, Attorney Perales must pay the PHV fee. Failure to do so will result in a vacatur of the conditional grant of the Motion. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 11/28/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 11/28/2018)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3227160. (Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 11/29/2018)
53 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/13/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
54 ORDER for the reasons explained in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, granting 6 Motion to Intervene; granting 9 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/13/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
55 ORDER On or before January 4, 2019, Defendants, the Martinez Intervenors, and the Local Government Intervenors SHALL each file an additional brief, not to exceed 10 pages, addressing the following issues: Whether Plaintiffs claimed representational injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief in light of Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801−804, 824−29 (1992) AND Whether Plaintiffs have Article III standing based on their claimed financial injury; Plaintiffs SHALL respond to the supplemental briefs on or before January 25, 2019, and Defendants and the Intervenors MAY reply on or before February 1, 2019. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/13/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
56 MOTION to Stay re 55 Order,, re Obligation to File Supplemental Brief Due to Lapse in Appropriations by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 12/26/2018)
57 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on Defendants' Motion for a Stay of Obligation to File Supplemental Brief. 56 . The Motion 56 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the court STAYS Defendants' obligation to file a supplemental brief until counsel is permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions. An updated briefing schedule will be set by later order. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/27/2018. (KAM) (Entered: 12/27/2018)
58 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on an informal request for clarification of the court's prior order staying the Defendants' obligation to file supplemental briefing. 57 . The Defendant Intervenors SHALL adhere to the current briefing deadline and file their supplemental briefs by January 4, 2019. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/2/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 01/02/2019)
59 Brief re 58 Order, Local Government Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
60 Brief re 55 Order, Martinez Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum. (Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 01/04/2019)
61 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira re 60 Martinez Defendant−Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum (Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 01/05/2019)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 25 of 32

01/08/2019 01/22/2019 01/23/2019 01/25/2019 01/29/2019 01/29/2019 01/30/2019
02/01/2019
02/01/2019 02/04/2019
02/06/2019 02/14/2019 02/15/2019
02/19/2019 02/19/2019

62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by San Jose' California, City of re 59 Brief (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 01/08/2019)
63 NOTICE of Appearance by Anil A Mujumdar on behalf of King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 01/22/2019)
64 NOTICE of Appearance by Ezra Rosenberg on behalf of San Jose' California, City of (Rosenberg, Ezra) Modified on 1/24/2019 (KAM, ). (Entered: 01/23/2019)
65 RESPONSE to re 55 (Opponent's Responsive Submission in Response to Exhibit B of the Court's Order Submitted in Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Martinez Defendant−Intervenors' Supplemental Memorandum filed by Alabama, State of. (Sinclair, Winfield) (Entered: 01/25/2019)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Dorian Lawrence Spence on behalf of King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of (Spence, Dorian) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
67 NOTICE by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce of Restoration of Appropriations (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 01/29/2019)
68 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on Defendants' Notice requesting the court for the opportunity to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' and Intervenor−Defendants to discuss an updated proposed briefing schedule. 67 . Accordingly, on or before February 1, 2019, the parties SHALL file a joint report proposing an updated briefing schedule that takes into account the duration of the lapse in appropriations. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/30/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
69 STATUS REPORT Regarding Proposed Further Briefing Schedule by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. filed by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
70 REPLY to re 55 (Martinez Defendant−Intervenors' Reply in Support of Supplemental Memorandum) filed by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. (Gomez, Julia) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
71 ORDER This case is before the court on the parties Status Report Regarding Proposed Further Briefing Schedule 69 ; The Martinez Intervenor−Defendants MAY file a reply supplemental brief by its current due date of February 1, 2019; Defendants SHALL file a consolidated reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss by its current due date of February 25, 2019. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/1/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 02/04/2019)
72 NOTICE of Appearance by Edmund Gerard LaCour on behalf of Alabama, State of (LaCour, Edmund) (Entered: 02/06/2019)
73 First MOTION for Leave to Appear pro hac vice for amicus by Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit certificates of good standing (2), # 2 Text of Proposed Order proposed order granting phv appearance)(Williams, Stephen) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
74 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of Attorneys Christopher J. Hajec and Michael M. Hethmon. 73 . The Motion 73 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. On or before February 20, 2019 Attorneys Hajec and Hethmon must pay the PHV fee. Failure to do so will result in a vacatur of the conditional grant of the Motion. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/15/2019. (KEK) (Entered: 02/15/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3281476. (Hajec, Christopher) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3281777. (Hethmon, Michael) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 26 of 32

02/19/2019 02/21/2019
02/22/2019 02/25/2019 04/08/2019 05/03/2019
05/24/2019
05/29/2019 05/29/2019 05/29/2019
05/29/2019 06/05/2019 06/05/2019 06/07/2019 06/10/2019

75 First MOTION for Leave to File amicus brief by Immigration Reform Law Institute. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement brief)(Williams, Stephen) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
76 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on the Immigration Reform Law Institute's Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs. 75 . The Motion 75 is GRANTED. On or before February 22, 2019, the IRLI SHALL file its brief on the court docket. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 2/21/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 02/21/2019)
77 Brief by Amicus, Immigration Reform Law Institute, in support of Plaintiffs and opposing Motion to Dismiss. (Williams, Stephen) (Entered: 02/22/2019)
78 REPLY to Response to Motion re 45 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 02/25/2019)
79 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jonathan Weissglass (Weissglass, Jonathan) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
80 ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 45 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction : Oral Argument is set for 5/24/2019 09:00 AM before Judge R David Proctor. Plaintiffs and Defendants SHALL coordinate with the Martinez Intervenors and the Local Government Intervenors to divide the allotted three hours among the parties that wish to offer argument. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/3/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 05/03/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge R David Proctor: Motion Hearing held on 5/24/2019 re 45 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by United States Department of Commerce, Ron S Jarmin, Bureau of the Census, Wilbur L Ross. (Court Reporter Lindy Fuller.) (KLL) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
81 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Raphael Rajendra by Santa Clara, California, County of. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
82 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Danielle Goldstein by Santa Clara, California, County of. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
83 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of Raphael Rajendra 81 and the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Danielle Goldstein 82 . The PHV Motion 81 is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. On or before Friday, May 31, 2019, Attorney Rajendra must pay the PHV fee. Failure to do so will result in a vacatur of the conditional grant of the Motion. Additionally, for good cause shown, the Motion to Withdraw 82 is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to remove Attorney Goldstein from the docket. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/29/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 50, receipt number 1126−3356714. (Segall, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
84 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/5/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
85 ORDER For the reasons explained in the accompanying memorandum opinion, DefendantsMotion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. # 45 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/5/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 06/05/2019)
86 NOTICE of Appearance by Raphael N Rajendra on behalf of Santa Clara, California, County of (Rajendra, Raphael) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
87 Transcript of Proceedings held on 5/24/2019, before Judge R. David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lindy M. Fuller. 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 through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 27 of 32

06/13/2019 06/14/2019 07/19/2019 07/19/2019 07/19/2019 07/23/2019 08/02/2019 08/06/2019
08/12/2019
08/12/2019
08/12/2019

7/1/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/11/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/8/2019. (KAM, ) (Entered: 06/10/2019)
88 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
89 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. 88 . The Motion 88 is GRANTED. On or before July 19, 2019, Defendants SHALL file their answer. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/14/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
90 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce.(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
91 ANSWER to 1 Complaint by King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of, Santa Clara, California, County of.(Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
92 Martinez Intervenors' ANSWER to 1 Complaint by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira.(Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 07/19/2019)
93 ORDER Status Conference set for 8/23/2019 10:30 AM before Judge R David Proctor; On or before August 19, 2019, the parties shall submit a joint report stating their respective positions regarding how this case should proceed. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 7/23/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 07/23/2019)
94 Unopposed MOTION to Continue Status Conference by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 08/02/2019)
95 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Continue the Status Conference scheduled for August 23, 2019. 94 . The Motion 94 is GRANTED. Accordingly, the status conference is RESCHEDULED to Friday, September 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. in the chambers of the undersigned. Additionally, on or before September 3, 2019, the parties SHALL submit a joint status report stating their respective positions regarding how this case should proceed. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/6/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 08/06/2019)
96 MOTION to Intervene Opposed Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants by State of New York, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, District of Columbia, State of Illinois, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas, Central Falls, Rhode Island, Chicago, Illinois, Hidalgo County, Texas, Monterey County, California, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Providence, Rhode Island, Seattle, Washington, United States Conference of Mayors. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Movants' Proposed Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint)(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
97 Brief re 96 MOTION to Intervene Opposed Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants Proposed Defendant−Intervenors' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Central Falls, Rhode Island, Chicago, Illinois, Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas, District of Columbia, Hidalgo County, Texas, Monterey County, California, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Providence, Rhode Island, Seattle, Washington, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, United States Conference of Mayors. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
98 MOTION to Intervene by Atlanta, Georgia, City of, Arlington County, Virginia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Declaration of John Lewis, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Proposed Answer, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Elizabeth Hardy With Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Declaration of Nina Hickson, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit A to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit B−1 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 7

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 28 of 32

08/13/2019
08/14/2019
08/14/2019 08/15/2019 08/20/2019
08/21/2019
08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019 08/21/2019

Exhibit Exhibit B−2 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit B−3 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit B−4 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit B−5 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit B−6 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit B−7 to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit C to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit D to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit E to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit F to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit G to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit H to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit I to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit J to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit K to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit L to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit M to Decl. of Nina Hickson, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Proposed Order)(Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 08/12/2019)
99 ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motions to Intervene 96 and 98 ; The parties SHALL brief the issues raised by the Motion in accordance with Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part of this order as if fully set out herein. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/13/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 08/13/2019)
100 TEXT ORDER This case is before the court on the parties' informal request for out−of−town counsel to participate in the September 6, 2019 status conference by telephone. The request is GRANTED. All parties SHALL be represented by at least one attorney who appears in person, but associated counsel MAY participate in the conference by telephone. The court will circulate the dial−in information by separate correspondence. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 18−772. (KAM) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
101 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Hartmann Rand on behalf of King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of, Santa Clara, California, County of (Rand, Paul) (Entered: 08/14/2019)
102 NOTICE of Appearance by Paul Hartmann Rand on behalf of King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of (Rand, Paul) (Entered: 08/15/2019)
103 RESPONSE to Motion re 98 MOTION to Intervene , 96 MOTION to Intervene Opposed Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants (Plaintiffs' Response to Motion to Intervene) filed by Alabama, State of, Morris J Brooks, Jr. (LaCour, Edmund) (Entered: 08/20/2019)
104 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of California, State of Massachusetts, State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Matthew Colangelo, # 2 Affidavit of Elena Goldstein, # 3 Affidavit of Ajay Saini, # 4 Affidavit of Elizabeth Morgan, # 5 Affidavit of Ann E. Lynch, # 6 Affidavit of Miranda M. Cover, # 7 Affidavit of Gabrielle D. Boutin, # 8 Affidavit of R. Matthew Wise, # 9 Affidavit of Barry A. Ragsdale in Support of Motions for Admission of Attorneys Pro Hac Vice)(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416885. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416889. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416893. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416895. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416900. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416901. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416904. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3416906. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/21/2019)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 29 of 32

08/22/2019 08/23/2019 08/23/2019
09/03/2019 09/06/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019 09/09/2019
09/10/2019 09/12/2019
09/13/2019

105 TEXT ORDER−This case is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice filed on behalf of the State of California, the State of Massachusetts, and the State of New York. 104. The Motion 104 is GRANTED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 8/22/2019. (JLC) (Entered: 08/22/2019)
106 RESPONSE in Support re 98 MOTION to Intervene filed by Arlington County, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, City of. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
107 REPLY to re 97 in Support of Moiton to Intervene in Response to Exhibit B of the Court's Order filed by Central Falls, Rhode Island, Chicago, Illinois, Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas, District of Columbia, Hidalgo County, Texas, Monterey County, California, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Providence, Rhode Island, Seattle, Washington, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, United States Conference of Mayors. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
108 STATUS REPORT (JOINT STATUS REPORT) by Alabama, State of, Morris J Brooks, Jr. filed by Alabama, State of, Morris J Brooks, Jr (LaCour, Edmund) (Entered: 09/03/2019)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge R David Proctor: Status Conference held on 9/6/2019. A separate order outlining the scheduling deadlines will be entered by the court. (Court Reporter Risa Entrekin.) (KLL) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
109 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 9/9/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
110 ORDER for the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion entered contemporaneously, the Proposed State and Other Defendant−Intervenors Motions to Intervene 96 , 98 are GRANTED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 9/9/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
111 INITIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery: The Administrative Record will be produced by November 1, 2019. Discovery related to jurisdictional issues may be commenced upon the filing of initial disclosures and shall be completed by May 1, 2020Dispositive Motions due by 6/15/2020. The court will conduct additional conferences as necessary. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 9/9/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
112 AMENDED COMPLAINT for Declaratory Relief against Alabama, State of, filed by Alabama, State of.(LaCour, Edmund) (Entered: 09/10/2019)
113 NOTICE of Appearance by Joyce White Vance on behalf of Central Falls, Rhode Island, Chicago, Illinois, Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas, District of Columbia, Hidalgo County, Texas, Monterey County, California, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Providence, Rhode Island, Seattle, Washington, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, United States Conference of Mayors (Vance, Joyce) (Entered: 09/12/2019)
114 Transcript of Proceedings held on 9/6/2019, before Judge R. David Proctor. Court Reporter/Transcriber Risa L. Entrekin. 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 through PACER. NOTICE: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. (A copy can be obtained at http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/local/court%20forms/transcripts/Transcript% 20Redaction%20Policy.pdf) See Transcript Redaction Policy Redaction Request due 10/4/2019. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/14/2019. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/12/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 09/13/2019)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 30 of 32

09/24/2019 10/01/2019
10/01/2019 10/01/2019 10/01/2019 10/02/2019
10/02/2019 10/02/2019 10/02/2019 10/02/2019 10/03/2019
10/07/2019 11/01/2019 11/01/2019 11/20/2019 12/02/2019

115 NOTICE of Appearance by Elizabeth Morgan on behalf of State of New York (Morgan, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
116 ANSWER to 112 Amended Complaint by Central Falls, Rhode Island, Chicago, Illinois, Cities and Counties of Cameron County, Texas, District of Columbia, Hidalgo County, Texas, Monterey County, California, New York, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Providence, Rhode Island, Seattle, Washington, State of California, State of Colorado, State of Connecticut, State of Illinois, State of Massachusetts, State of Minnesota, State of Nevada, State of New Jersey, State of New Mexico, State of New York, State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Vermont, State of Virginia, State of Washington, United States Conference of Mayors.(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
117 ANSWER to 112 Amended Complaint by Bureau of the Census, Ron S Jarmin, Wilbur L Ross, United States Department of Commerce.(Rosenberg, Brad) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
118 ANSWER to 112 Amended Complaint by Arlington County, Virginia, Atlanta, Georgia, City of, King County, Washington, San Jose' California, City of.(Mujumdar, Anil) Modified on 10/1/2019 (KAM, ). (Entered: 10/01/2019)
119 ANSWER to 112 Amended Complaint , CROSSCLAIM against All Defendants by Joey Cardenas, Diana Martinez, Raisa Sequeira, Irving Medina, Florinda P. Chavez, Saulo Corona, Chicanos Por La Causa.(Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 10/01/2019)
120 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State of Oregon, State of Rhode Island, State of Washington. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Barry A. Ragsdale, # 2 Declaration of J. Nicole DeFever, # 3 Declaration of Justin J. Sullivan, # 4 Declaration of Laura K. Clinton, # 5 Declaration of Andrew Russell Wenderoff Hughes)(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3447460. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3447463. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3447465. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3447470. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
121 TEXT ORDERThis case is before the court on the Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice 120 filed on behalf of the State of Oregon, the State of Rhode Island, and the State of Washington. The Motion 120 is GRANTED. Attorneys J. Nicole Defever, Justin J. Sullivan, Laura K. Clinton, and Andrew R.W. Hughes are admitted to appear Pro Hac Vice in this action. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 10/3/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
122 NOTICE of Appearance by J. Nicole DeFever on behalf of State of Oregon (DeFever, J.) (Entered: 10/07/2019)
123 NOTICE of Appearance by Alexander V Sverdlov on behalf of All Defendants (Sverdlov, Alexander) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
124 NOTICE by United States Department of Commerce Notice of Filing of the Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Record Certification and Index, # 2 Record Part 1, # 3 Record Part 2, # 4 Record Part 3)(Sverdlov, Alexander) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
125 NOTICE of Appearance by Nina Perales on behalf of Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina (Perales, Nina) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
126 ANSWER to Crossclaim by United States Department of Commerce.(Sverdlov, Alexander) (Entered: 12/02/2019)

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 31 of 32

12/11/2019 01/10/2020
01/13/2020 01/13/2020
01/13/2020 01/17/2020 01/21/2020
01/21/2020 01/21/2020 01/22/2020
01/29/2020 01/29/2020 02/10/2020 04/13/2020 05/08/2020 05/08/2020

127 TEXT ORDER This case is SET for a telephone status conference on January 13, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. The parties are DIRECTED to call 866−434−5269 at 2:00 p.m. The access code is 6022965. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 12/11/2019. (KAM) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
128 STATUS REPORT re Martinez Intervenors' Cross−Claim by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. filed by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira (Senteno, Andrea) (Entered: 01/10/2020)
129 NOTICE of Appearance by Brenton Merrill Smith on behalf of Alabama, State of (Smith, Brenton) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
130 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: certain time limits apply as set out in this order; Discovery − The Administrative Record will be produced by November 1, 2019. Discovery related to jurisdictional issues may be commenced upon the filing of initial disclosures and shall be completed by May 15, 2020. Dispositive Motions due by 6/29/2020.. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/13/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge R David Proctor: Telephone Conference held on 1/13/2020. A separate Amended Scheduling Order will be entered by the court. (Court Reporter Risa Entrekin.) (KLL) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
131 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Ryan M. Kusmin by San Jose' California, City of. (Mujumdar, Anil) (Entered: 01/17/2020)
132 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on Defendant−Intervenor City of San Jose, Californias Motion to Withdraw attorney Ryan M. Kusmin as Counsel 131 . For good cause shown, the Motion 131 is GRANTED. Attorney Ryan M. Kusmin is hereby TERMINATED. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/21/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
133 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Amanda Meyer by State of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Barry A. Ragsdale, # 2 Affidavit of Amanda Meyer)(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3518913. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
134 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on the State of New Yorks Motion for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice 133 filed on behalf of attorney Amanda Meyer. The Application 133 is GRANTED. Attorney Meyer is accordingly granted leave to appear pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/22/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 01/22/2020)
135 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Denise Hulett by Diana Martinez. (Hulett, Denise) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
136 TEXT ORDER This matter is before the court on the Motion to Withdraw, filed by Denise Hulett, counsel for the Martinez Defendant−Intervenors 135 . The Motion 135 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate attorney Hulett. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 1/29/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 01/29/2020)
137 NOTICE of Appearance by Amanda Marie Meyer on behalf of State of New York (Meyer, Amanda) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
138 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Smith Vance, III on behalf of King County, Washington (Vance, Robert) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
139 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, Chicanos Por La Causa, Saulo Corona, Diana Martinez, Irving Medina, Raisa Sequeira. (Gomez, Julia) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
140 TEXT ORDER −− This matter is before the court on the Martinez Defendant−Intervenors Motion to Withdraw, filed on behalf of Attorney Julia Gomez 139 . For good cause shown, the Motion 139 is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to TERMINATE attorney Gomez. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on

Case: 2:18-cv-772 As of: 06/12/2020 10:56 AM CDT 32 of 32

05/08/2020 05/11/2020
05/12/2020 05/12/2020 05/13/2020
05/19/2020 06/11/2020

5/8/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
141 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery and Post−Discovery Deadlines by Atlanta, Georgia, City of. (Vance, Robert) (Entered: 05/08/2020)
142 TEXT ORDER − This matter is before the court on the parties Joint Motion to Extend Discovery and Post−Discovery Deadlines 141 . For good cause shown, the Motion 141 is GRANTED. The following amended deadlines will govern: (1) the deadline to complete discovery SHALL be July 10, 2020; (2) the parties SHALL file a joint status report regarding the briefing schedule and any hearing(s) that should be set on or before July 23, 2020; and (3) dispositive motions SHALL be filed on or before August 24, 2020. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/11//2020. (KAM) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
143 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Joseph J. Wardenski by New York, New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Joseph J. Wardenski, # 2 Affidavit of Barry A. Ragsdale)(Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
PHV Fee paid: $ 75, receipt number 1126−3588873. (Ragsdale, Barry) (Entered: 05/12/2020)
144 TEXT ORDER −− This matter is before the court on Defendant−Intervenor State of New Yorks Motion for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice 143 , filed on behalf of Attorney Joseph J. Wardenski. Defendant−Intervenors Motion 143 is GRANTED. Attorney Wardenski is accordingly granted leave to appear pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 5/13/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
145 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Wardenski on behalf of State of New York (Wardenski, Joseph) (Entered: 05/19/2020)
146 TEXT ORDER − This case is SET for a telephone conference on Monday, June 15,2020 at 3:00 p.m. Counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Defendant−Intervenors are DIRECTED to dial−in to the conference by calling 866−434−5269 at the scheduled time. The access code is 6022965. Signed by Judge R David Proctor on 6/11/2020. (KAM) (Entered: 06/11/2020)

 
 Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

FILED
2018 May-23 PM 03:18 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

STATE OF ALABAMA; and

)

)

Morris J. Brooks, Jr.,

)

Representative for Alabama's 5th

)

Congressional District

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

)

OF COMMERCE; and WILBUR L.

)

ROSS, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary of Commerce

)

)

BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, an

)

agency within the United States

)

Department of Commerce; and RON S.

)

JARMIN, in his capacity as performing

)

the non-exclusive functions and duties

)

of the Director of the U.S. Census Bureau

)

)

D efendants .

)

Civil Action No.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

INTRODUCTION

1.

Because of Defendants' unlawful decision to include illegal aliens1 in the census

figures used for determining the apportionment of the House of Representatives and Electoral

College votes, Plaintiffthe State ofAlabama stands to lose one congressional seat and one electoral

vote in the reapportionment conducted pursuant to the 2020 Census. The Final 2020 Census

1 As used herein, "illegal aliens" is defined to mean persons who are present in the United States by virtue of either illegal entry in violation of federal immigration statutes or who have entered the United States legally but have remained present in the country beyond the period of time permitted by federal law.
1

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 2 of 35
Residence Criteria and Residence Situations Rule promulgated by the United States Census Bureau ("Census Bureau") on February 8, 2018, provides that foreign nationals living in the United States will be counted in the census and allocated to the state where their "usual residence" is located- regardless of whether they are legally present in the United States. Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525 (February 8, 20 18) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Ch. I) ("Residence Rule"). As a result, the congressional and electoral apportionment predicated on the 2020 census numbers will re-allocate a congressional seat and an electoral vote from the State of Alabama to a state with a larger illegal alien population.
2. The Residence Rule violates Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the constitutional principle of equal representation by robbing the people of the State of Alabama of their rightful share of political representation while systematically redistributing political power to states with high numbers of illegal aliens and their citizens. For much the same reasons, the Residence Rule violates Article II,§ 1 ofthe United States Constitution by necessitating an unconstitutional distribution of Electoral College votes among the states.
3. The Residence Rule breaches the federal government's constitutional obligation to conduct an "actual Enumeration" of the number of " persons in each State. " The phrase " persons in each State" was understood at both the Founding and in the Reconstruction era to be restricted to aliens who have been lawfully admitted to the body politic constituted by the Constitution. Aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States did not qualify because they are not entitled to political representation. U.S. Canst. art. 1, § 2, cl. 3. Thus, the actual enumeration of the population of the states cannot include such aliens.
4. This suit challenges the Defendants' unconstitutional and arbitrary decision to include illegal aliens in the census numbers utilized for calculating congressional and electoral
2

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 3 of 35
apportiorunent. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the Residence Rule is unconstitutional because an apportionment ofmembers ofthe House ofRepresentatives and Electoral College votes among the states based on population figures which include illegal aliens would violate § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I,§ 2's requirement of an "actual Enumeration" ofthe population of the United States, and Article II,§ 1 of the United States Constitution.
5. Finally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the Residence Rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), ("APA") because it is both arbitrary and capricious and exceeds the statutory authority of the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau. The Residence Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the Defendants failed to give any explanation of their decision to incorporate illegal aliens into the putative apportionment base or meaningfully respond to comments calling for the exclusion of illegal aliens from the population totals. And properly interpreted, 13 U.S.C. § 141 and 2 U.S.C. § 2a-the statutes governing the conduct of the census and congressional apportionment-require a census enumeration of the total of legally present resident population of the United States and an apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes predicated on that count. By including illegal aliens in the total population of each state and enabling an apportionment based on that population base, the Residence Rule violates these statutes.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 220l(a) because this action arises under U.S. Constitution, amend. XIV, § 2, U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 2, U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1, and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706. This Court also has jurisdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 1346(a) because this is a civil action against the United States. 7. Declaratory relief is sought as authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706.
3

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 4 of 35
8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (e)(l). Defendants are United States agencies or officers sued in their official capacities. Plaintiffs are residents of this judicial district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in this district.
9. Plaintiffs bring this action to redress hanns to their proprietary and sovereign interests and as to their interests as parens patriae.
THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff the State of Alabama, represented by and through its Attorney General Steve Marshall, is a sovereign state in the United States of America. The State of Alabama has a cognizable interest in its own right in representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, which is integral to the state's power within the federal system. 2. Plaintiff Morris J. "Mo" Brooks, Jr. , is a member of the United States House of Representatives. He represents Alabama's 5th Congressional District and is a registered voter in the State of Alabama. The Congressional district he represents will be disrupted by a reapportionment that accounts for illegal aliens and his vote will be diluted. 3. Defendant United States Department of Commerce is a cabinet agency within the executive branch of the United States Government, and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). The Commerce Department is responsible for planning, designing, and implementing the 2020 Census. 13 U.S.C. § 4. 4. Defendant Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., is the Secretary of Commerce. He is responsible for conducting decennial censuses of the population, and oversees the Bureau ofthe Census ("Census Bureau"). The Census Bureau is the agency responsible for planning and administering the decennial census. He is sued in his official capacity.
4

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 5 of 35
5. Defendant Census Bureau is an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of Commerce. 13 U.S.C. § 2. The Census Bureau is the agency responsible for planning and administering the decennial census.
6. Defendant Ron S. Jannin is cunently performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the Director of the Census Bureau. He is sued in his official capacity.
ALLEGATIONS I. Defendants have a constitutional obligation to conduct the census in a manner that
assures fair representation of the States. 7. The Census Clause of the United States Constitution provides that Representatives "shall be apportioned among the several States . .. according to their respective Numbers," U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, which requires "counting the whole number of persons in each State." !d. amend. XIV, § 2. To ensure fair representation among the states, the Constitution requires that this count of the population of each state consist in an "actual Enumeration" of the number of "persons" in each state conducted every ten years "in such manner as [Congress] shall by law direct." !d. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. 8. The same enumeration determines the number of electors in the Electoral College to which each state is entitled. The Constitution provides that each state is entitled to "a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled to in Congress." U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The Electors "shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President." !d. amend. XII. Thus, taken together with each state's entitlement to two Senators, the Census enumeration determines the number of Presidential electors to which each state is entitled by detennining the size of each state' s congressional delegation.
5

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 6 of 35
9. Congress has delegated the responsibility to conduct the required enumeration to the Secretary of Commerce. Under the statute governing the conduct of the census, the Secretary of Commerce "shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of popul ation as of the first day of April of such year." 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). The statute further provides that "[t]he tabulation of total population by States . . . as required for the apportiomnent of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States." Id. § 141(b).
10. The Secretary is authorized to delegate authority to establish procedures to conduct the census to the Census Bureau. 13 U.S.C. §§ 2, 4.
11. The core constitutional purpose of the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce in taking the decetmial census is to conduct an accurate enumeration of the people of the United States so they are adequately represented in Congress and in Presidential elections.
12. To enable a person-by-person count, the Census Bureau sends a questionnaire to every household in the United States. The questionnaires are directed to every resident in the United States and residents are legally required to respond. 13 U.S.C. § 22 1. The Census Bureau then counts responses from every household to detennine the population of the states.
13. After the decennial census is conducted by the Census Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce reports the tabulation ofthe population of the states to the President, the President must "transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census of the population, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportiomnent of the then existing number of Representatives." 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a).
6

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 7 of 35
14. Under 2 U.S .C. § 2a(b), " [e]ach State shall be entitled, in the Eighty-third Congress and in each Congress thereafter until the taking effect of a reapportiorunent under this section or subsequent statute, to the number ofRepresentatives shown in the statement required by subsection (a) of this section, no State to receive less than one Member."
15. Within 15 days after the receipt ofthe President's statement, the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives must "send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled." 2 U.S.C. § 2a(b).
II. The Residence Rule will require the incorporation of illegal aliens into the apportionment base used for assigning seats in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
16. The apportiorunent population of a state generally is defined to include a state's resident population plus all the state's military and civilian personnel of the federal govenunent and their dependents who are abroad on April 1 of the census year.
17. The resident population of a state is comprised of all persons counted in the Census-including all illegal aliens who either mail their Census form back or whose presence in the United States was recorded by a Census Bureau employee in an interview. A person qualifies as a state resident if he meets the Census Bureau's definition of"usual residence," which includes anyone who has a U.S. residence "where they live and sleep most of the time." Residence Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525, at 5526.
18. Census Bureau regulations governing the conduct of the 2020 Census explicitly require the incorporation of the illegal alien population of the United States into the count of the total population ofthe states used by the President in calculating the number ofrepresentatives and electoral votes to which each state is entitled. Under the Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations rule, "[c]itizens of foreign countries living in the United States" are
7

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 8 of 35
"[c]ounted at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time." Residence Rule 83 Fed. Reg. 5525, at 5533.
19. Citizens of foreign countries are counted in the census tally used for apportionment purposes regardless ofwhether they are legal permanent residents ofthe United States. The Census Bureau received a comment on the 2020 Residence Rule that explicitly raised the issue of counting illegal aliens in the Census.
20. The Secretary of Commerce will utilize the estimates ofthe total number ofpersons in each state compiled by the Census Bureau in discharging his statutory duty to prepare a "tabulation oftotal population by States .. . as required for the appmiionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States" for the President of the United States. 13 U.S.C. § 141(b). In accordance with the criteria set forth in the Residence Rule, this tabulation will include the illegal alien population of each state.
21. The President will necessarily rely on the estimates delivered by the Secretary of Commerce in detetmining the number of congressional seats to which each state is entitled. The President is required by law to "transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of p ersons in each State excluding Indians not taxed, as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent decennial census ofthe population." 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a) (emphasis added). Thus, the President has no authority to base an apportionment on any alternative tally of the population of each state.
22. To the extent that the President has authority to unilaterally alter the tabulation of the population of each state delivered by the Secretary of Commerce, he will not be able to alter this tabulation to exclude illegal aliens from the apportionment base so long as the Residence Rule remains in effect.
8

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 9 of 35
23. There is no plausible method by which the President could unilaterally alter the report delivered by the Secretary of Commerce to exclude illegal aliens from the tally of the populatio n of each state used for congressional and electoral apportiomnent.
24. On March 29, 20 18, Defendants atmounced their decision to ask a question regarding citizenship status on the 2020 Census.2
25. But neither the Department of Commerce nor the Census Bureau has armounced a decision to add a question to determine whether a Census respondent and his dependents have legal permanent resident status in the United States, and the Residence Rule explicitly rejects such a criterion of enumeration.
26. In the ab sence of information regarding the legal status of persons enumerated in the census, there is no method by which the President would reasonably be able to reliably determine which Census respondents are legally present as residents in the United States or exclude them from the apportiorunent calculation he is obligated by statute to certify to Congress.
27. The Clerk of the House of Representatives is bound by law to issue a statement to the executives of each state reflecting the President's determination of the number of seats in the House of Representatives to which each state is entitled. 2 U.S.C. § 2a(b). Thus, the final act required by statute to complete the apportiomnent process will be based on an enumeration of the population of each state that includes illegal aliens.
28. Accordingly, the Residence Rule's critetia for determining the population of each state will ultimately determine the apportiorunent ofthe House ofRepresentatives and the Electoral College.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey I (Mar. 2018).
9

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 10 of 35
III. Including illegal aliens in the apportionment base has repeatedly redistributed congressional seats and Electoral College votes from states with low numbers of illegal aliens to states with high numbers of illegal aliens.
29. For the past three decades, the United States has been undergoing the largest wave
of immigration in American history. By the end of the 1990s, at least 1.5 million immigrants were
arriving in the United States per year. These rates have been relatively stable since then. In 20 16, the Department of Homeland Security determined that an estimated 1.1 million persons were
granted legal permanent resident status in the United States, up from 1 million in 20 15 and 2014.3
By contrast, immigration to the United States in the Ellis Island migration wave peaked at about 800,000 persons per year between 1900 and 1909.4 Prior to the present immigration wave, the Ellis Island wave was the largest migration in United States history.
30. Illegal immigrants make up a substantial component of the American immigrant
population. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that at least 11.59 million illegal
aliens resided in the United States in 2010 and at least 11.4 million illegal aliens lived in the United States in 2012.5 These numbers are mirrored by other estimates. Pew Research Center estimates that roughly 11 .1 million illegal aliens resided in the United States in 20 14.6 The Center for
Migration Studies estimates that more than 11 million illegal aliens resided in the United States in 2 0 15. 7
3 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 20 16" (Dec. 20 17), available at https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016/table I . 4 George J. Botjas, We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative 52 (20 16). 5 Bryan Baker & Nancy Rythina, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 20 12," at 5 tbl. 3 (Mar. 20 13), available at http s :// www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publi ca tions/ois_ i ll_ p e_ 20 12_ 2. pdf. 6 JeffreyS. Passel & D 'Vera Cohn, Pew Research Center, "Overall Number of U.S. Unauthorized Immigrants Holds Steady Since 2009," available at http://www.pewhispanic.org/20 16/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorizedimmigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/ (Sept. 20 16). 7 Cen ter for Migration Studies, "State-Level Unauthorized Population and Eligible-to-Naturalize Estimates," available at http://data.cmsny.org/ (2016).
10

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 11 of 35
31. In previous censuses, the Census Bureau failed to exclude illegal aliens from the enumeration of the number ofpersons in each state. Apportionment was based on the total resident population of each state- including illegal aliens -relative to the other states in the United States.
32. The reapportionment of House seats and electoral votes is a zero sum proposition: Each state's gain is another state's loss. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. That number has been fixed by statute since 1910. See 2 U.S .C. § 2a(a) (refers to "the then existing number" of members, which was 435 when the statute was adopted). Thus, every decennial census redistributes 435 seats among the states.
33. Illegal immigration impacts the distribution ofseats in the House ofRepresentatives and the Electoral College because the United States' illegal alien population is both large and highly concentrated. If the illegal alien population were evenly distributed among the states, incorporating illegal aliens in the apportionment base would have no impact on the distribution of House seats.
34. But in 2000, two-thirds of the foreign born who indicated on the Census that they have lived in the United States for more than 20 years still lived in just six states. 8
35. According to Immigration and Naturalization Service estimates, one out of every two illegal aliens lived in just three states in the year 2000.9
8 Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, & Amanda K. Baumle, RemaJ..:-ing the Political Landscape: The Impact ofIllegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, Center for Immigration Studies, https://cis.org/Report!Remaking-Political-Landscape (Oct. 2003). 9 !d.
11

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 12 of 35
36. Department of Homeland Security estimates for the year 2010 concluded that over 61 percent of illegal aliens lived in just six states in that year. 10 73 percent of illegal aliens li ved in only 10 states. 11
37. Defendants' practice of including illegal aliens in the Census has repeatedly resulted in the unlawful distribution of additional House seats and electoral votes to states with high numbers of illegal aliens from states with low numbers of illegal aliens, depriving those states and their citizens of their rightful share of representation and political power.
38. Illegal immigration not only redistributes seats in the House of Representatives, it also has the same effect on Presidential elections because the number of electors in the Electoral College to which a state is entitled is determined by the size of its congressional delegation.
39. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimated that almost 7 million illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 Census.12
40. According to the Department of Homeland Security, 11 .59 million illegal aliens were counted in the 2010 Census.13
41. There is no reason to believe that illegal aliens will not respond to the 2020 Census in significant numbers and at a similar rate.
42. The presence of illegal aliens in the 2000 Census caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one seat in the House and one vote in the Electoral College in 2000, while
10 Bryan Baker and Nancy Rythina, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 20 12," U.S. Department of Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2012_2.pdf (Mar. 20 13). II Jd. 12 Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarata, & Amanda K. Baumle, Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact ofIllegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, Centerfor Immigration Studies, https://cis.org!Report/Remaking-Political-Landscape (Oct. 2003). 13 Bryan Baker and Nancy Rythina, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012," U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_ill_pe_2012_2. pdf (Mar. 20 13).
12

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 13 of 35
Montana failed to gain a seat in the House and an Electoral College vote it othetwise would have gained. 14 California gained three seats due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the 2000 Census, and North Carolina gained one seat. 15 Thus, four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.
43. In the 2000 apportionment, 12 congressional seats and Electoral College votes changed hands. Thus, the effects of including illegal aliens in the 2000 Census accounted for onefourth of the total change by redistributing three seats from Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi. The incorporation of illegal aliens in the apportionment base also prevented one seat from changing hands that otherwise would have, by preventing Montana from gaining a seat it would h ave been entitled to under an apportionment that excluded illegal aliens from the population base considered.
44. In the 2010 Census, including illegal aliens in the congressional and electoral apportionment base once again redistributed political power from states with low numbers of illegal aliens to states with high numbers of illegal aliens.
45. In the apportionment that followed the 20 10 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost one seat in the House of Representatives and one vote in the Electoral College. 16 Montana once again failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote that it would have gained had illegal aliens been excluded from the apportionment base. By contrast, California gained 2 seats and electoral votes that it would not have had if illegal aliens had been excluded from the apportionment base,
14 Dudley L. Poston, Jr., Steven A. Camarota, & Amanda K. Baumle, Remaking the Political Landscape: The Impact ofIllegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, Centerfor Immigration Studies, https://cis.org/Report!Remaking-Political-Landscape (Oct. 2003). 15 !d. 16 Steven A. Camarota, Shifting the Balance: How the Gang ofEight bill and Immigration generally shifts seats in the House ofRepresentatives, Center for Immigration Studies, https://cis.org/sites/defaultlfiles/camarota-house-reapportionment.pdf (Nov. 20 13).
13

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 14 of 35
and Florida and Texas gained one congressional seat and one electoral vote each to which they would not othetwise have been entitled. 17
46. Citizens and legal residents of states with low illegal alien populations lose representation as a consequence of including illegal aliens in the apportionment base. But illegal aliens do not benefit from this practice because they cannot vote or generally take part in the political process. Instead, the gains from including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who live in states with large numbers of illegal aliens. In a state in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who live in states where a larger share of the population is made up of Ametican citizens. Counting large illegal alien populations in the census appropriates voting power from Americans and bestows it on other Americans.
47. In the states that lost seats due to immigration in 2010, 96 percent ofthe voting-age population were citizens, in contrast to 86 percent in the states that gained seats. In the states that lost seats due to immigration in 2010, the average district had 543,243 voting age citizens, compared to only 449,553 in the states that gained seats. 18
48. Including illegal aliens in the apportionment base compromises the right to equal representation. The redistribution caused by illegal immigration tends to take representation away from states comprised mostly of United States citizens and petmanent legal residents and redistribute that representation to states where many residents are not legal residents of the United States. In states granted more seats due to their high illegal alien population, representatives and electors will represent a smaller number of constituents than their counterparts in states with low numbers of illegal aliens.
17 ! d. 18 !d.
14

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 15 of 35
49. The redistribution of political power caused by including illegal immigrants in the apportionment base disincentivizes states with large illegal alien populations from cooperating with federal immigration authorities (lest they lose political power that comes with additional representatives and votes in the Electoral College) and punishes states who do cooperate with federal immigration authmities in the identification and removal of aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States.
IV. Defendants' decision to include illegal aliens in the census population count for purposes of apportionment will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation.
50. Incorporating illegal aliens into the population count utilized for apportionment will likely result in the State of Alabama losing a seat in the House of Representatives and a vote in the Electoral College.
51. The effects of illegal immigration on congressional and electoral apportionment can be accurately measured by removing the estimated illegal alien population from each state's projected total population and recalculating the allocation ofseats in the House of Representatives using the method of equal proportions.
52. The method of equal proportions has been used in every census conducted since the 1940 census. See U.S. Dept. a/Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992).
53. The Census Bureau offers a detailed explanation of how the method of equal proportions operates. 19
54. Use of the method of equal proportions in apportionment is required by statute. 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a) (number of representatives to which each state is entitled shall be detennined "by the method known as the method of equal proportions.").
19 See United States Census Bureau, Computing Apportionment, https://www.census.gov/populationlapportionmentlaboutlcomputing.html (last updated February 4, 20 13).
15

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 16 of 35
55. Alabama currently has 7 seats in the House of Representatives and 9 Electoral College votes.
56. If illegal immigrants are included in the apportionment population for the 2020 Census, the size of Alabama's congressional delegation will fall to 6 seats in the House of Representatives.
57. For the same reason, Alabama's number of votes in the Electoral College will fall to 8 electoral votes as a result of the 2020 apportionment if illegal aliens are counted in the apportionment base and allocated to the states where they have their usual residence.
58. But if illegal aliens are excluded, from the 2020 Census population figures used for apportiomnent, Alabama will retain its 7 seats in the House of Representatives.
59. If illegal aliens are excluded from the count of the population in the 2020 Census, Alabama will retain its 9 votes in the Electoral College.
60. Ohio will likely lose a congressional seat and an electoral vote due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the 2020 Census. Ohio also lost a seat and an electoral vote because of the inclusion ofillegal aliens in the 2010 Census.
61. As in the 2000 and 20 10 Censuses, Montana will not gain a congressional seat and an electoral vote that it would have gained if illegal aliens were excluded from the 2020 Census and the appo1iionment base.
62. As a result of the inclusion of illegal aliens in the 2020 Census, both Arizona and Texas will likely gain one congressional seat and one electoral vote.
63. California will avoid losing one congressional seat and electoral vote that it would have lost if illegal aliens were excluded from the 2020 Census.
16

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 17 of 35
64. This will deprive Alabama and its legal residents of equal representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College because illegal aliens are not entitled to representation in either body.
65. The average estimate of the total legal resident population of Alabama in 2020 is 4,863,279. This means that if illegal aliens are included in the 2020 Census and Alabama's House delegation is reduced to six members, an Alabama congressional representative will represent 810,546 constituents on average.
66. The average estimate of the total legal resident population of Arizona in 2020 is 7,010,144. This means that an Arizona congressional representative will represent 701,014 constituents on average if illegal aliens are not excluded from the apportionment base.
67. The average estimate of the total legal resident population of Texas in 2020 is 28,007,401. That means that a Texas congressional representative will represent 718,138 constituents on average if illegal aliens are not excluded from the apportionment base.
68. The average estimate of the total legal resident population of California in 2020 is 38,123 ,406. That means that a California congressional representative will represent 719,309 constituents on average if illegal aliens are not excluded from the app01iionment base.
69. Thus, while the average Alabama representative will represent 810,546 constituents, the average representative from a state that gains or does not lose a seat due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Censu s will represent 712,820 constituents- a difference of97,726 constituents.
70. By contrast, if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportionment base, an Alabama representative will represent 694,754 constituents on average. Representatives from Arizona,
17

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 18 of 35
Texas, and California will represent on average 778,904, 737,036, and 747,517 constituents, respectively.
71. While the average Alabama representative will represent 694,754 constituents if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportiomnent base, the average representative from a state that gains or does not lose a seat due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census will represent 754,486 constituents if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportionment base-a difference of 56,060 constituents.
72. This means that excluding illegal aliens from the apportiomnent base will reduce representational inequality between Alabama and the states that gain from the inclusion of illegal aliens in the census by approximately 41,666 constituents per congressional representative. This is a reduction of representational inequality by 42.6 percent.
V . Defendants' decision to include illegal aliens in the Census enumeration will likely cause the State of Alabama to lose federal and private funding.
73. Counting illegal aliens in the Census will jeopardize critical federal funding needed by states to provide services to millions of legal residents.
74. Many federal programs rely on the population figures collected in the decennial census to allocate funds to state and local goverrunents. Approximately $700 billion is distributed annually to nearly 300 different census-guided federal grant and funding programs. Including illegal aliens in the 2020 Census enumeration will hann Plaintiff the State ofAlabama and its legal residents by depriving them of their fair share of federal funding.
75. For example, the Highway Tmst Fund provides grants to states for road construction and other surface transportation programs, which are calculated on the basis of local population estimates collected through the decennial census. 23 U.S.C. § 104(d)(3).
76. In fiscal year 2015, Alabama received $756 million in Highway Tmst Fund grants.
18

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 19 of 35

77. Under the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program, the Department of

Transportation utilized population figures from the most recent decennial census to calculate federal resources allocated to cities and states for planning, operating, and improving

transportation. 49 U.S.C. §§ 5307, 5340.

78. In fiscal year 2017, Alabama received over $23.9 million in Urbanized Area Fonnula grants.

79. The Child Care and Development Fund allocates funding based on census information on the number of children below the age of thirteen. 45 C.P.R. § 98.63 .

80. grants.

In fiscal year 2015, Alabama received over $42 million in Child Care Development

81. Because the funds in these programs and other federally-funded programs are allocated-based data collected in the decennial census, Alabama will lose federal funding that it would have received if illegal aliens had been excluded from the census. These funds will be

redistributed to states that show a higher population total in the Census than they would h ave sh own if illegal aliens were excluded from the Census enumeration of the population of each state. Losses of funding for these programs will significantly harm the State of Alabama, which will

need to either meet these needs through state funding or allow resource needs to go urunet. 82. An accurate census is necessary to allow both public and private actors to identify
and m eet community and business needs.

83. The Department of Commerce estimates that census data guides trillions of dollars

in private sector investment and is used to create $22 1 billion in private sector revenue.

19

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 20 of 35
84. Non-profit organizations use census data to decide where to provide critical aid such as health care and natural disaster relief. Non-profit organizations also use census data in determining where to conduct fundraising and advocacy drives.
85. Including illegal aliens in the census enumeration will likely deprive historically disadvantaged communities and low-income communities in Alabama of vital private resources over the next decade by steering those resources to states with higher numbers of illegal aliens.
86. The State of Alabama will need to expend additional resources to compensate for the loss of vital aid from private actors to their residents, or allow their residents' needs to go unmet.
VI. The Residence Rule is Unlawful 87 . The Residence Rule is unlawful because it violates (1) Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the Census Clause of Article I, § 2, (3) the Electoral Apportionment Clause of Article II,§ 1, (4) § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and (5) § 706(2)(C) of the APA. A. Including illegal aliens in the federal apportionment base violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Article II,§ 1. 88. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed." U.S . Const. amend. XIV, § 2, cl. 1. 89. This language largely tracks the language of the original Census Clause, which provided that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within tlus Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term ofYears, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.
20

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 21 of 35
90. The same calculation dictates the apportionment of electoral votes between the states, excepting those electoral votes that derive from a state's entitlement to representation in the Senate. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the Constitution, "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."
91. A rule governing the conduct of the census and apportionment comports with the requirements of these constitutional provisions only if it is "consistent with the constitutional language and the constitutional goal of equal representation." Franklin, 505 U.S. at 804.
92. The Residence Rule promulgated by the Census Bureau does not comport with either of these requirements and is thus unconstitutional.
1. Including illegal aliens in the apportionment base is inconsistent with the text of the Fourteenth Amendment because illegal aliens are not "persons in each State" for apportionment purposes. 93. Incorporating illegal aliens into the apportiomnent base is inconsistent with the
language of the Fourteenth Amendment's Census Clause because the tenn "persons in each State" as it occurs in the Census Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not refer to any and all natural persons who happen to be present in the United States on census day, but rather only to members of " the people."
94. The Constitution repeatedly uses the terms "persons" and "the people" interchangeably. The history and structure of the Constitution indicate that the Fourteenth Amendment Census Clause uses the term "persons" to refer to "members of the people." As it occurs in the Constitution, the term " the people" refers to persons who are "members of the political community" constituted by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. District ofColumbia v. H eller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008).
21

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 22 of 35
95. Illegal aliens are not members of the political community constituted by the Constitution and thus cannot be counted for apportionment purposes. While legal immigrants are entitled to virtual political representation because they have been admitted to the political community by the people of the United States, acting through their elected representatives, illegal aliens have not been admitted to the political community and thus are not entitled to representation in Congress or the Electoral College.
96. Therefore, the Residence Rule violates the Census Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it incorporates illegal aliens in the congressional appmiionment base.
97. The Residence Rule will cause the apportionment based on the 2020 census to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by including aliens who should not be counted in the apportionment base under tllis amendment.
98. The Residence Rule is inconsistent with Article I, § 2, because the "actual Enumeration" required by that provision includes only those who should be counted for apportionment purposes. This does not include illegal aliens.
99. The Residence Rule violates Article II,§ 1, of the Constitution because it mandates a distribution of Electoral College electors among the states based on an unconstitutional allocation of congressional seats.
2. Including illegal aliens in the apportionment base is inconsistent with the text of the Fourteenth Amendment because illegal aliens are not inhabitants of the states as that term was understood at the Founding and Reconstruction. 100. The Census Clause requires apportionment based on the "number of persons in
each State." U.S . Canst. amend. XIV,§ 2, cl. 1 (emphasis added). 101. The original Census Clause apportioned representatives "among the several States
which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
22

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 23 of 35
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, tlu·ee fifths of all other Persons." U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 3.
102. At both the time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the language of the Census Clause was publicly understood to require an apportiorunent base comprised of the inhabitants of the states.
103. The drafts of the apportiorunent provision, including the version initially approved by the Constitutional Convention, used the term "inhabitants" rather than "persons" or "residents." 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 350, 352 (Max Farrand, ed., Yale University Press, 1937) (refening to the "whole number of free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description (except Indians not paying taxes)").
104. In the public law of the founding era, the term " inhabitant" did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitancy was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside.
105. Although the language of the original Census Clause omitted the term "inhabitant," this change was not intended as a substantive alteration of the drafting language. The original public understanding of the Census Clause was that the plu·ase "whole Number of free Persons" in each state was synonymous with the term "inhabitants," and that term did not encompass unlawful residents. The ''Number'' of persons in each state was equivalent to that state' s number of inhabitants at the Founding.
106. When the Census Clause was given its present form by the Fomieenth Amendment, the phrase "whole number ofpersons in each State" was publicl y understood to refer only to legal
23

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 24 of 35
inhabitants of the states and did not purport to alter the meaning of the Census Clause so that unlawful residents would be included in the apportionment base.
107. The phrase "persons in each State" was not understood to mean anything different from the phrase "the whole Number of free Persons" in the original Census Clause.
108. Thus, the Residence Rule violates the Census Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it includes illegal aliens in the apportionment base even though they do not qualify as "inhabitants" of the states under the original understanding of the Constitution.
109. The Residence Rule is inconsistent with Article I, § 2, because the "actual Enumeration" required by that provision includes only those who constitute "persons in each State" for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. This phrase does not encompass illegal aliens.
110. The Residence Rule violates Article II, § 1, ofthe Constitution because it mandates a distribution of Electoral College votes based on an unconstitutional allocation of congressional seats.
3. Including illegal aliens in the apportionment base is inconsistent with the constitutional goal of equal representation. 111. Rules governing the conduct of the decennial census and apportionment are
constitutional only if they are "consistent with ... the constitutional goal of equal representation." Franklin, 505 U.S. at 804.
11 2. The "principle of representational equality" embodied in the Constitution requires "that the voters of each district have the power to elect a representative who represents the same number of constituents as all other representatives." Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S.Ct. 1120, 1126 (2016).
24

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 25 of 35
113. Illegal aliens are not "constituents" for purposes of the principle of equal representation because they have no legal entitlement to representation in the House of Representatives or the Electoral College.
114. Representatives and electors do not represent human beings in general or all persons living within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, but rather the self-goveming people of the United States, their descendants, and aliens whom the people of the United States have chosen to admit to the political community created by the Constitution through lawful immigration. Illegal aliens are not part of this political community, and are thus not entitled to political representation.
115. Illegal aliens are not "constituents" in the sense comprehended by the principle of equal representation because they have not been admitted to the political community constituted by the United States Constitution.
116. The Residence Rule violates this principle because including illegal aliens in the apportionment base systematically redistributes congressional seats and electoral votes from states with low numbers of illegal aliens to states with high numbers of illegal aliens. This results in a situation in which congressional representatives and electors of states with high numbers of illegal aliens represent substantially fewer constituents than representatives and electors from states with low numbers of illegal aliens.
117. The average Alabama representative will likely represent 810,546 constituents, but the average representative from a state that gains a seat due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census will represent 7 12,820 constituents-a difference of 97,726 constih1ents. But if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportionment base, an Alabama representative will likely represent 694,754 constituents on average and assuming the average estimate of Alabama's legal resident
25

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 26 of 35
population in 2020. Representatives from Arizona, Texas, and California will represent on average 778,904, 737,036, and 747,517 constituents, respectively.
11 8. The average Alabama representative will represent 694,754 constituents if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportionment base. The average representative from a state that gains or does not lose a seat due to the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census will represent 754,486 constituents if illegal aliens are excluded from the apportionment base-a difference of 56,060 constituents.
11 9. Excluding illegal aliens from the apportionment base will likely reduce representational inequality between Alabama and the states that gain from the inclusion of illegal aliens in the census by approximately 41,666 constituents per congressional representative. This is a reduction of representational inequality by 42.6 percent.
120. Thus, including illegal aliens in the appmiiomnent base will deprive Alabama and its citizens of their rightful share of political power in both Congress and the Electoral College while unconstitutionally augmenting the political power of states with high numbers of illegal aliens.
121. Thus, the Residence Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it violates the principle of equal representation enshrined in that amendment.
122. For the same reason, the Residence Rule violates Article II,§ 1, ofthe Constitution because it mandates a distribution of Electoral College votes based on an allocation of congressional seats that violates the principle of equal representation.
123. The Residence Rule violates Article I,§ 2's requirement that the census constitute an "actual enumeration" of the number of "persons in each State" because it requires an enumeration that violates the principle of equal representation when utilized for its
26

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 27 of 35
constitutionally-ordained task: Apportionment of the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.
B. The Residence Rule is unlawful because it is arbitrary and capricious. 124. The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that
is "(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; [or] (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
125. In reaching the ultimate decision to allocate illegal aliens to the States, the Defendants had an obligation to "examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for [the] action including a 'rational connection between the facts found and the choice made."' Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (citation omitted). The Residence Rule is arbitrary and capricious under this standard because the Defendants completely failed to give any explanation of their decision to include illegal aliens in the census tabulation of the population of each State that will be used for apportionment purposes.
126. The Residence Rule is also substantively unreasonable. Multicultural Media, Telecom, and Internet Council v. FCC, 873 F.3d 932, 936 (D.C. Cir. 2017) ("A substantive unreasonableness claim" contends that "given the facts, the agency exercised its discretion unreasonably. A decision that the agency' s action was substantively unreasonable generally means that, on remand, the agency must exercise its discretion differently and reach a different bottomline decision.") ("Multicultural Media"). The Census Bureau concedes that the "fundamental reason that the decennial census is conducted is to fulfi ll the constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 2) to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states." Residence
27

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 28 of 35
Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525, at 5526. The Bureau also concedes that the goal of the enumeration accomplished by the census is a "fair and equitable apportiomnent." !d. But including illegal aliens in the census count used for apportionment purposes necessarily results in an apportiomnent that is neither fair nor equitable because it is inconsistent with the principle of equal representation and results in vote dilution.
127. Defendants "failed to adequately address all of the relevant factors or to adequately explain its exercise of discretion in light of the infonnation before it." Multicultural Media, 873 F.3d at 937. They did not consider the possibility of excluding illegal aliens from the census figures used for apportionment, even though excluding illegal aliens from that count would best comport with their own stated goal of conducting a census that will enable a "fair and equitable apportionment." Residence Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525, at 5526.
128. The Census Bureau utterly failed to offer a meaningful and reasoned response to a comment in the rulemaking record that raised the issue presented in this suit. Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 626 F.3d 84, 94 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (remanding to agency for further explanation because it "did not resolve the[ ] commentators' objections" or, at best, "attempt[ed] to address them in a conclusory manner").
129. The commenter in question "expressed concern about the impact of including undocumented people in the population counts for redistricting because these people cannot vote, and they stated that this practice encourages gerrymandering." Residence Rule, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525, at 5530. The Census Bureau's only response to this comment was to assert that tllis comment was "considered out of scope for this document" by the Census Bureau. !d. The Bureau did not give any substantive response to the comment or even attempt to justify its decision to include illegal aliens within the census tally used for apportionment. Nor did the Census Bureau offer any
28

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 29 of 35
justification for its conclusory assertion that this comment was beyond the scope of the Residence Rule. This fa ilure renders the Residence Rule arbitrary and capricious. Sierra Club v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 863 F.3d 834, 838-39 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (remanding to agency for further explanation because it "failed to respond adequately to comments" that agency argued were outside the scope of its determination).
130. The Residence Rule creates perverse incentives for states to contravene the enforcement of federal immigration law in order to augment their share of political power and federal funding at the expense of states that cooperate with federal authorities to enforce the immigration laws. As a result, the Residence Rule undennines the enforcement policies present in the federal immigration statutes. This practical incompatibility renders the rule an abuse of discretion.
131. The Residence Rule is premised on an internally inconsistent and umeasoned reading of the Census Clause and governing statutes. The Residence Rule allocates persons deployed outside the United States on Census Day to the States where they have their usual stateside residence even though they are not physically present in a State on census day and do not currently reside in th e United States. This demonstrates that it is a legal connection to a State that detennines whether a person should be allocated to a State for apportionment purposes in Defendants' view, not their physical presence in the State or where they currently usually live and sleep. But this allocative ctiterion is inconsistent with Defendants' decision to allocate illegal aliens to the States where they make their factual residence even though they have no legal entitlement to reside in that State.
132. For at least these reasons, the Residence Rule violates 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and must be set aside as unlawful.
29

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 30 of 35
C. The Residence Rule is unlawful because it is in excess of statutory authority. 133. The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that
is "in excess ofstatutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short ofstatutory right." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
134. Under the statute that defines the duties of the Secretary of Cmmnerce with respect to the conduct of the census, the Secretary of Commerce "shall, in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decemual census of population as of the first day of April of such year." 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). It further provides that " [t]he tabulatio n of total population by States ... as required for the apportiomnent of Representatives in Congress among the several States shall be completed within 9 months after the census date and reported by the Secretary to the President of the United States." Id. § 141(b).
135. Under the constitutional avoidance canon, " federal courts should not constme a statute to create a constitutional question unless there is a clear statement from Congress endorsing this understanding." Johnson v. Governor ofFlorida , 405 F.3d 1214, 1229 (11th Cir. 2005).
136. Interpreting 13 U.S.C. § 141 to use the term "population" to encompass persons who are unlawfully present within the United States would raise substantial constitutional questions about the validity of that statute under the Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, § 2, and Article II, § 1. Under that interpretation, the statute would mandate the incorporation of illegal aliens into the apportionment base and thus violate the United States Constitution.
137. Thus, 13 U.S.C. § 141 should be interpreted to use the term "population" to refer only to the legally present population of the states to avoid these setious constitutional questions.
30

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 31 of 35
138. Under this interpretation of the statute, the Residence Rule exceeds the statutory authority of the Secretary of Commerce and the Census Bureau because it purports to include illegal aliens in the tally of the population of the states designated for use in the apportionment calculation by 13 U.S .C. § 14l(b) and 2 U.S.C. § 2a.
139. Accordingly, the Residence Rule must be held unlawful and set aside under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C).
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Congressional Apportionment) 140. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 141. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." U.S. Const., amend. XIV. 142. The Residence Rule will cause the apportionment based on the 2020 census to violate the Fourteenth Amendment by including aliens who should not be counted for the purpose of apportiorunent, and by effectuating an interstate apportiorunent that is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of equal representation. Thus, the Residence Rule violates the Fourteenth Amendment and must be held unconstitutional and set aside.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article I, § 2, and Article II, § 1 (Electoral College
Apportionment) 143. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 144. Article II, § 1, provides that "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." U.S. Const. art II,§ 1, cl. 2.
31

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 32 of 35
145. Because the Residence Rule includes illegal aliens in the tally of the population of the states that is used to apportion the House of Representatives, and the number of House seats a state has is detenninative ofthe number of electoral votes to which a state is entitled, the Residence Rule violates Article II, § 1, by basing the apportionment of electoral votes on a population figure that includes aliens who should not be counted for purposes of apportionment and by violating the principle of equal representation. Thus, the Residence Rule must be held unconstitutional and set asi d e.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Article I, § 2 (Actual Enumeration) 146. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 147. Article I, § 2 provides that "[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 Tem1 of ten Years, in such manner as they by law direct." U.S . const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3. The required " actual Enumeration" must be an enumeration of "the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." Id., amend. XIV. 148. Illegal aliens should not be counted for purposes ofthe Census Clause and including them in the apportionment base would violate the principle ofequal representation. Therefore, an "actual Enumeration" which incorporates them into the count of the number of persons in each state is constitutionally defective. This is what the Residence Rule does, which entails that it violates Article I, § 2's requirement of an "actual enumeration" of the number of persons in each state and must be set aside as unconstitutional.
32

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 33 of 35
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA (Arbitrary and Capricious) 149. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 150. The APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse ofdiscretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 151. The Residence Rule is arbitrary and capricious because the Defendants failed to give any explanation of their decision to incorporate illegal aliens into the putative apportionment base or meaningfully respond to comments calling for the exclusion of illegal aliens from the population totals, and the Rule is substantively unreasonable, self-contradictory, and unprincipled. 152. Because the Residence Rule is arbitrary and capricious, it violates 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and must be held unlawful and set aside.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the APA (Contrary to Law) 153. The Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs. 154. APA requires this Court to hold unlawful and set aside any agency action that is "in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C). 155. Properly interpreted, 13 U.S.C. § 141(b) and 2 U.S.C. § 2a require a census enumeration of the total population of the legally present population of the United States and an apportionment of congressional seats and Electoral College votes predicated on that population base.
33

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 34 of 35
156. The Residence Rule violates this statutory requirement by counting illegal aliens and allocating them to the states where they usually live and sleep.
157. Because the Residence Rule exceeds the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau's authority under those statutes and are contrary to their requirements, the Residence Rule violates 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) and must be set aside as unlawful.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 158. Wherefore, the Plaintiffs ask this Court to issue an order and judgment: a. Declaring that the Residence Rule is unlawful because it violates (1) Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the Census Clause of Article I, § 2, (3) the Electoral Apportionment Clause of Article II,§ 1, (4) § 706(2)(A) of the APA, and (5) § 706(2)(C) of the APA; b. Declaring that any apportionment of the House of Representatives conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 2a by the Secretary of Commerce that does not use the best available methods to exclude illegal aliens from the population figures utilized to apportion congressional seats and electoral votes among the states would be unconstitutional. c. Vacating and setting aside the Residence Rule insofar as it permits or requires the Census Bureau to include illegal aliens in the population figures utilized to conduct the apportionment of the House of Representatives and the Electoral College among the states; d. Remanding this case to the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau, to permit the Defendants to issue rules that comply with the Constitution, the APA, and governing statutes. e. Awarding the Plaintiffs such additional relief, including injunctive relief, as the Court deems appropriate.
34

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 35 of 35
Respectfully submitted, STEVE MARSHALL Alabama Attorney General BY: Eric M. Palmer (ASB-1808-J 15R) Assistant Solicitor General James W. Davis (ASB-4063-I58J) Deputy Attorney General

Monis J. Brooks, Jr. Prose 2101 W. CLINTON AVE. Suite 302 Huntsville, AL 35805 (256) 355-9400 (256) 355-9406-FAX
Counsel for Plaintiff Morris J. Brooks, Jr.

Winfield J. Sinclair (ASB-1750-S81 W) Brad A. Chynoweth (ASB-0030-S63K) Assistant Attorneys General OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 WASHINGTON A VENUE Post Office Box 300152 Montgomery, AL 36130-0152 (334) 353-2196 (334) 123-4567-FAX Email: epalmer@ago.state.al.us
jimdavis@ago.state.al.us wsinclair@ago.state.al.us bchyno w e th @ a g o .state.al.us Counselfor Plaintiff The State ofAlabama
35

 
 Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al.,
Defendants.

} } } } } Case No.: 2:18-CV-772-RDP } } } } }

FILED
2018 Dec-13 AM 11:34 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION This case is before the court on two Motions to Intervene. (Docs. # 6, 9). The first was filed by Diana Martinez, Raisa Sequeira, Saulo Corona, Irving Medina, Joey Cardenas, Florinda P. Chavez, and Chicanos Por La Causa (“CPLC”) (collectively, “the Martinez Movants”). (Doc. # 6). The second was filed by Santa Clara County, California; King County, Washington; and the City of San José, California (collectively, “the Local Government Movants”). (Doc. # 9). The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have filed their Motions (Docs. # 6, 9) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and 24(b). The Motions are fully briefed (Docs. # 6, 9, 16-18), and are ripe for review. For the reasons explained below, the Motions are due to be granted under rule 24(b)(1)(B), as the court concludes the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors are entitled to permissive intervention. I. Procedural Background Plaintiffs, the State of Alabama and Representative Morris J. “Mo” Brooks, Jr., filed suit on May 21, 2018, challenging the Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations Rule (“Residence Rule”), which was finalized in February 2018. (Doc. # 1 at ¶ 1). The

1

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 2 of 7
Residence Rule1 “provides that foreign nationals living in the United States will be counted in the census and allocated to the state where their „usual residence‟ is located—regardless of whether they are legally present in the United States.” (Id.). Plaintiffs raise three constitutional and two statutory challenges to the Residence Rule, and contend that the inclusion of undocumented persons in the 2020 Census will negatively affect Alabama‟s access to federal funding as well as the State‟s political representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. (See generally Doc. # 1). Plaintiffs request (1) that the Residence Rule be declared unlawful and (2) that the congressional apportionment following the 2020 Census exclude undocumented persons from the population figures. (Id. at ¶ 158).
The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors filed their respective Motions on July 12, 2018 (Doc. # 6) and July 17, 2018 (Doc. # 9). The Martinez Movants are comprised of six voters from California, Florida, Arizona, and Texas -- states which they indicate have large populations of Latinos, non-U.S. citizens, and undocumented immigrants -- and CPLC, an organization that “works to increase Latino political empowerment in Arizona.” (Doc. # 6-2 at 6). Similarly, the Local Government Movants include two counties and a municipality “that are home to disproportionately large populations of undocumented persons.” (Doc. # 9 at 6). Both groups of movants request either leave to intervene as Defendants as of right pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(1)(B). (Docs. # 6-2 at 6; 9 at 5).
The only opposition to the Motions was filed by the State of Alabama on July 20, 2018. (Doc. # 16). Alabama argues that the Motions should be denied without prejudice and suggests that the court should instead grant amicus status to one or more of the movants. (Id. at 1-2).
1 Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations, 83 Fed. Reg. 5525 (February 8, 2018) (to be codified at 15 C.F.R. Ch. 1) (“Residence Rule”).
2

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 3 of 7
Defendants United States Department of Commerce, Wilbur L. Ross, Bureau of the Census, and Ron S. Jarmin responded on July 20, 2018 by declaring that they “take no position one way or another regarding the motions to intervene.” (Doc. # 15 at 1). The court notes that Defendants have since filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing due to the speculative nature of the injury they assert. (Doc. # 45).
II. Analysis For the reasons described below, the Motions to Intervene are due to be granted, and the
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors are entitled to permissive intervention. And, because the court finds permissive intervention is appropriate in this case, the court need not address whether the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors may intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a).
A. The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors Are Entitled to Permissive Intervention
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) permits a party to intervene if, by timely motion, the party asserts “a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” The principal consideration is whether intervention will “unduly prejudice or delay the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.” Georgia v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 302 F.3d 1242, 1250 (11th Cir. 2002); see also Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11th Cir. 1989). Ultimately, the decision to allow a party to permissively intervene is “wholly discretionary with the court.” Worlds v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 929 F.2d 591, 595 (11th Cir. 1991). Because the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors satisfy each of these elements, they are entitled to permissive intervention.
To be sure, the briefing on this issue is not targeted at an assertion that the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors lack a defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Rather, the opposition to intervention addresses whether the Motions are timely. In
3

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 4 of 7
determining whether a motion to intervene is timely, a court should consider the following factors: “(1) the length of time during which the proposed intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of the interest in the case before moving to intervene; (2) the extent of prejudice to the existing parties as a result of the proposed intervenor‟s failure to move for intervention as soon as it knew or reasonably should have known of its interest; (3) the extent of prejudice to the proposed intervenor if the motion is denied; and (4) the existence of unusual circumstances militating either for or against a determination that their motion was timely.” Georgia, 302 F.3d at 1259 (citing Chiles, 865 F.2d at 1213). The same analysis applies whether the court is considering a motion for intervention as a matter of right or permissive intervention. United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1516 (11th Cir. 1983).
The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have filed their Motions at the earliest stages of this litigation. Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on May 21, 2018 (Doc. # 1), and the Motions to Intervene were filed on July 12, 2018 (Doc. # 6) and July 17, 2018 (Doc. # 9), respectively—less than two months after the Complaint was filed. No discovery has been conducted, no scheduling order has been entered, and no motions have been heard by the court. Permitting intervention at this stage will not delay the adjudication of the litigants‟ rights or the judicial process as “the court [has] yet to take significant action.” Georgia, 302 F.3d at 1259-60 (finding intervention timely and non-prejudicial because “the court had yet to take significant action,” even though the motion was filed 6 months after intervenor was aware of its interest in the litigation and discovery had already commenced).
The State of Alabama attempts to argue that the Motions to Intervene are untimely, not because they were filed too late, but because they were filed too early. (Doc. # 16 at 3). However, that argument commingles the timeliness and inadequate representation elements. In
4

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 5 of 7
arguing that the Motions are “premature,” the State points out that Defendants have not filed an answer and there is no way to know whether Defendants will adequately represent the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors‟ interests. (Id.). However, the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have provided the court with multiple examples of caselaw from courts in this Circuit rejecting similar arguments. (Doc. # 17 at 6-8). See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat’l Park Serv., 2016 WL 5415127, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2016) (finding motion to intervene timely when it was filed thirty days after the complaint was filed and before defendants filed a responsive pleading); Defs. Of Wildlife v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Mgmt., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130581, at *7-8 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 9, 2010) (finding motion to intervene timely where it was filed before defendants had filed a responsive pleading); Holmes v. Educational Credit Management Corp., 2012 WL 1605940, at *2 (N.D. Fla. April 4, 2012) (finding motion to intervene timely because there was no prejudice to existing parties where motion was filed prior to the answer deadline). Further, and in any event, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on November 13, 2018, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing to pursue their claims. (Doc. # 45). Because intervention would not prejudice the existing parties at this early phase of litigation, the Motions to Intervene are timely.
As to the third factor, Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have shown they will likely suffer prejudice if their Motions to Intervene are denied. In considering this factor, “the thrust of the inquiry must be the extent to which a final judgment in the case may bind the movant even though he is not adequately represented by an existing party.” United States v. Jefferson County, 720 F.2d at 1517. This factor is given particular weight where the proposed intervenor “has a sufficiently greater stake than the party that the party‟s representation may be inadequate to protect the movant‟s interest.” Id. Here, the papers before the court demonstrate that the
5

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 6 of 7
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors have a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation, such that they would be prejudiced if intervention was not permitted. If the Residence Rule was vacated, the Martinez Movants have asserted that their “voting strength and representation in the House of Representatives and the [E]lectoral [C]ollege” could be negatively affected. (Doc. # 6-2 at 16). In the case of the Local Government Movants, their potential prejudice is twofold: (1) their “ability to maintain accurate internal political boundaries” may be harmed and (2) the amount of Census-Based Federal Funding granted to each municipality may decrease. (Doc. # 9 at 6). As a result, the respective interests of the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors may go unrepresented if they are not permitted to intervene. Thus, the court finds the Motions to be timely.
The Proposed Defendant-Intervenors also satisfy the commonality standard required by Rule 24(b), because they intend to defend the Residence Rule based on the same law and facts that the existing parties to the litigation have already raised. (See Docs. # 6-3; 9-1). Specifically, they argue that the Residence Rule is lawful under the both the Constitution and the APA. (Id.). While Plaintiffs contend that an “actual enumeration” of the “whole number of persons in each State” must exclude undocumented persons (see generally Doc. # 1), the Movants argue that the “persons” to be counted for purposes of apportionment necessarily includes undocumented persons. (Docs. # 6-2 at 24; 9 at 22). Indeed, the defenses the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors intend to submit share identical questions of fact and law with the main action. As such, they are entitled to a secondary voice in the action in order to protect their specific interests. 2
2 The decision to permit intervention in this case is particularly significant in light of Defendants‟ rather halfhearted Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. # 45). Indeed, the court is concerned that Defendants have overlooked a key argument as to why Plaintiffs potentially lack Article III standing—i.e., whether Plaintiffs‟ claimed representational injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision of this court. See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). Allowing intervention will increase the prospect that the court will be more fully informed of the best arguments that support Defendants‟ position.
6

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 53 Filed 12/13/18 Page 7 of 7 III. Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, the Motions to Intervene are due to be granted. Consequently, the Proposed Defendant-Intervenors may permissively intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). A separate Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this December 13, 2018. _________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7

 
 Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al.,
Defendants.

} } } } } Case No.: 2:18-cv-00772-RDP } } } } }

FILED
2019 Jun-05 PM 04:44 U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

MEMORANDUM OPINION In this case, the State of Alabama and U.S. Representative Morris J. Brooks, Jr. seek a declaratory judgment that the federal government’s inclusion of illegal aliens in the population figures used to apportion congressional seats among the states is unlawful. (Doc. # 1). The federal defendants have moved to dismiss the lawsuit, asserting that Plaintiffs lack Article III standing. (Doc. # 45). After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, the court holds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Article III standing. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore due to be denied. I. Background1 The Constitution provides that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2. To make that apportionment possible, the Constitution

1 For purposes of ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court treats the factual allegations of the complaint (Doc. # 1) as true, but not its legal conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Aaron Private Clinic Mgmt. LLC v. Berry, 912 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2019); Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2013).

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 22
mandates that an “actual Enumeration” be conducted “every . . . ten Years, in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct.” Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3.
Heeding this mandate, Congress has by law directed the Secretary of Commerce to “in the year 1980 and every 10 years thereafter, take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). The decennial census may be taken “in such form and content as [the Secretary] may determine.” Id. Following completion of the decennial census, the Secretary must submit to the President “[t]he tabulation of total population by States . . . as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States.” Id. § 141(b).
These total population figures are then used for a variety of purposes. As relevant here, the population figures generated by the census are used to (1) apportion seats in the House of Representatives among the states, 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a), (b); (2) allocate Electoral College votes among the states, 3 U.S.C. § 3; and (3) allocate federal and private funds among the states (Doc. # 1 at 18-20, ¶¶ 73-86). The court briefly discusses the process by which each of these tasks is accomplished.
Congressional Apportionment: As noted above, the Constitution requires seats in the House of Representatives to be “apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 2. Within nine months after April 1 of the decennial census year, the Secretary of Commerce must submit to the President “[t]he tabulation of total population by States . . . as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(b). After receiving the Secretary’s report, another statute instructs the President to “transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State . . . as
2

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 22
ascertained under the . . . decennial census of the population, and the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an apportionment of the then existing number of Representatives by the method known as the method of equal proportions, no State to receive less than one Member.” 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a).
Under that same statute, each state is “entitled . . . to the number of Representatives shown” in the President’s statement, and the Clerk of the House of Representatives must “send to the executive of each State a certificate of the number of Representatives to which such State is entitled.” Id. § 2a(b). Thus, the number of congressional representatives a given state receives is determined by the President’s statement, which must apportion representatives based on the total population of each state “as ascertained under the . . . decennial census.” Id. § 2a(a); see also Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 791-92, 797-800 (1992) (describing the President’s role in the reapportionment process).
Electoral College Vote Allocation: The number of presidential electors each state receives is directly tied to the state’s congressional delegation and thus, by extension, to the state’s population as determined in the decennial census. The Constitution provides that the number of electors in each state shall be “equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. In keeping with this constitutional provision, Congress has provided that “[t]he number of electors shall be equal to the number of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice President to be chosen come into office.” 3 U.S.C. § 3. Thus, any change in the number of congressional representatives to which a state is entitled results in a corresponding change in the number of presidential electors to which it is entitled.
3

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 22
Allocation of Federal and Private Funds: The amount of certain federal and private funds a state receives also depends in large measure on the state’s total population as determined by the decennial census. (Doc. # 1 at 18-20, ¶¶ 73-86). Many federal programs rely on the population figures generated by the decennial census to allocate funds to state and local governments. (Id. at 18, ¶ 74). For example, the Highway Trust Fund provides grants to states for road construction and other surface transportation programs, which are calculated on the basis of local population estimates collected through the decennial census. (Id. at ¶ 75) (citing 23 U.S.C. § 104(d)(3)). In fiscal year 2015, Alabama received $756 million in Highway Trust Fund grants. (Id. at ¶ 76). Numerous other federal programs, through which Alabama receives millions of dollars each year, also rely on population data from the decennial census to allocate funds among states. (Id. at 19, ¶¶ 77-80). Additionally, the Department of Commerce estimates that census data guides trillions of dollars in private-sector investment, and nonprofit organizations often use census data to decide where to provide critical aid like health care and disaster relief. (Id. at 19-20, ¶¶ 83-84). Thus, state population figures as determined by the decennial census have the potential to alter the amount of private sector investment and nonprofit aid a state receives.
In conducting the census, the Secretary of Commerce endeavors to count every single person living in the United States, without regard to citizenship or legal resident status. (Doc. # 1 at 7-8, ¶¶ 16-19). By regulation, citizens of foreign countries living in the United States (including those here illegally) are counted “at the U.S. residence where they live and sleep most of the time.” Final 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations, 83 Fed. Reg. 552501 at 5533 (Feb. 8, 2018). These individuals are then included in the total state population figures used for apportionment and Electoral College purposes (the “apportionment base”), regardless of whether they are legal residents of the United States. (Doc. # 1 at 8, ¶ 19-20). Thus,
4

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 5 of 22
when congressional seats and Electoral College votes are apportioned among the states, the apportionment base will include the illegal alien population of each state. (Id. at ¶ 20). By the same token, federal programs and private actors that rely on census population data to allocate funds and resources among the states will base their decisions on state population figures that include the illegal alien population of each state. (Id. at 19-20, ¶¶ 81, 85-86).
The State of Alabama and U.S. Representative Morris J. Brooks, Jr. (who represents Alabama’s 5th congressional district) claim that the federal government’s inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base is unlawful. Specifically, they contend this practice violates (1) § 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) the Enumeration Clause of Article I, § 2, (3) the Electoral Apportionment Clause of Article II, § 1, and (4) the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). (Doc. # 1 at 20, ¶ 87). And, more importantly for purposes of this opinion, Alabama and Representative Brooks claim they will be injured if the total state population figures from the 2020 census include the illegal alien population of each state. Alabama and Representative Brooks each allege two injuries they will suffer if the federal government is permitted to include illegal aliens in the final population figures following the 2020 census.
Alabama alleges it will suffer (1) a loss of political representation in Congress and the Electoral College and (2) the loss of federal and private funds it would otherwise have received. (Doc. # 1 at 15-20, ¶¶ 50-86). In particular, Alabama alleges that if illegal aliens are included in the final population figures used for congressional reapportionment, one congressional representative and one Electoral College vote will be reallocated from Alabama to a state with a larger illegal alien population. (Id. at 1-2, ¶ 1). Alabama further asserts that counting illegal aliens in the 2020 census will cause it to lose federal and private funds it would have received had illegal aliens been excluded from the count. (Id. at 19-20, ¶¶ 81, 85-86). According to
5

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 6 of 22
Alabama, funds it would have received will be redistributed to states that have disproportionately high illegal alien populations, because those states will show a much greater total population than they would if illegal aliens were excluded from the census. (Id. at 19, ¶ 81).
Representative Brooks’ alleged injuries are (1) that his vote will be diluted due to Alabama’s loss of political representation in Congress and the Electoral College and (2) that the congressional district he represents will be disrupted when Alabama loses one of its congressional seats. (Id. at 4, ¶ 2). In short, both of Representative Brooks’ alleged injuries derive from and depend on Alabama losing one U.S. House seat in the reapportionment following the 2020 census. II. Legal Standard
Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. But not all disputes that might be termed “cases” or “controversies” in the colloquial sense count as Article III cases and controversies. The doctrine of standing serves to identify those disputes which qualify as Article III cases and controversies—that is, “those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
The test for determining whether a plaintiff has standing is familiar. “[T]he irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact.” Id. An injury in fact is “an invasion of a legally protected interest” which is both “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Id. (internal quotation marks removed). Second, the conduct complained of must have a causal connection to the plaintiff’s injury. Id. This means the injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, not the conduct of some third party not
6

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 7 of 22
before the court. Id. Third, “it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. at 561 (internal quotation marks removed).
At the pleading stage, courts evaluate standing based on the facts alleged in the complaint. Aaron Private Clinic Mgmt. LLC v. Berry, 912 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2019); see also Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561; Made in the USA Found. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1300, 1306 n.13 (11th Cir. 2001). Where a defendant mounts a “facial” challenge to standing -- one that relies solely on the face of the complaint rather than any extrinsic evidence -- courts must accept the allegations of the complaint as true. Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 133536 (11th Cir. 2013). To satisfy its burden at the pleading stage, a plaintiff “must ‘clearly allege facts demonstrating each element’” of standing. Aaron, 912 F.3d at 1336 (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016)). Moreover, a plaintiff’s factual allegations must “plausibly” show that it has standing. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc., 922 F.3d 1175, 1184 (11th Cir. 2019). It is not enough that a complaint merely alleges facts from which a court could “imagine an injury sufficient to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements.” Aaron, 912 F.3d at 1336 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Finally, “the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s caseor-controversy requirement.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006). For that reason, only one of the two plaintiffs in this case needs to have standing for the court to reach the merits of this dispute. See Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, 518 (2007). III. Analysis
Alabama has alleged two injuries that potentially confer standing: (1) loss of representation in Congress and the Electoral College and (2) loss of federal and private funds.
7

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 8 of 22
Representative Brooks has also alleged two injuries: (1) vote dilution based on Alabama’s loss of representation in Congress and the Electoral College and (2) disruption of the congressional district he represents based on Alabama’s loss of a congressional representative. The court concludes that Alabama and Representative Brooks have adequately alleged standing based on their claimed representational injuries. Because the court finds standing based on Plaintiffs’ claimed representational injuries, it need not consider whether the loss of federal and private funds or the disruption of Representative Brooks’ congressional district would confer standing.
A. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged Standing Based on Their Claimed Representational Injuries Alabama’s congressional delegation currently consists of seven representatives and two
senators, giving it a total of nine Electoral College votes. (Doc. # 1 at 16, ¶ 55). If illegal aliens are included in the apportionment base following the 2020 census, Alabama alleges it will lose one seat in the House of Representatives and thus one Electoral College vote. (Id. at ¶¶ 56-57). As a result of having six representatives instead of seven, each representative from Alabama will represent 810,546 constituents on average, instead of the roughly 694,754 constituents each representative currently represents. (Id. at 17, ¶¶ 65, 70). By being forced to vote in a district that is more populous that it otherwise would be, Representative Brooks (who is a registered voter in Alabama) claims his vote will be diluted. (Id. at 4, ¶ 2).
As previously noted, the court must determine whether Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged all three elements of standing: injury in fact, causation, and redressability. As explained below, the court holds that Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden at the pleading stage with respect to all three elements.
8

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 9 of 22
1. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Alleged Cognizable Article III Injuries The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the loss of a congressional representative is a cognizable Article III injury, both for the state (which loses representation in Congress and the Electoral College) and its voters (whose votes are diluted). See Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 801-03, 824 (1992); Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 331 (1999); Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 458-64 (2002). In Franklin, Massachusetts and two of its registered voters challenged the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to allocate overseas federal employees to their home states for purposes of congressional reapportionment following the 1990 census. 505 U.S. at 790-91. The Secretary’s decision to count overseas employees as residing in particular states for apportionment purposes “altered the relative state populations enough to shift a Representative from Massachusetts to Washington.” Id. at 791. Five Justices in Franklin expressly agreed that the plaintiffs had established a cognizable Article III injury by showing that Massachusetts would have received an additional representative had the Secretary not allocated overseas federal employees to their home states for apportionment purposes. Id. at 801-03 (O’Connor, J., writing for a four-Justice plurality); id. at 824 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).2 Thus, Franklin establishes that the loss of a congressional representative is a cognizable Article III injury, both for the state and its registered voters.3
2 Four other Justices reached the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims but did not expressly opine on whether they had standing. See Franklin, 505 U.S. at 807-23 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). If one accepts that, by implication and force of logic, these Justices were necessarily satisfied that the plaintiffs had standing, the total count of Justices who agreed the plaintiffs had suffered an injury in fact comes to nine. See Utah, 536 U.S. at 460 (explaining that the Stevens plurality in Franklin “saw no further standing obstacle”).
3 See Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, 792 F.3d 1331, 1335-36 (11th Cir. 2015) (ruling that because five Justices in a Supreme Court decision “agreed that applying Rule 23 to allow a class action for a statutory penalty created by New York law did not abridge, enlarge, or modify a substantive right,” that holding was binding on the Eleventh Circuit); Bryan A. Garner et al., The Law of Judicial Precedent § 19, at 194 (2016) (observing that “statements, rules, or principles [in Supreme Court opinions] that have the support of a majority of
9

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 10 of 22
But even if there were some doubt that Franklin settled the issue (and really, there is not), the Supreme Court has squarely held in two subsequent cases that the loss of a congressional representative is a cognizable Article III injury. In Department of Commerce, the Court concluded that a state’s expected loss of a representative following reapportionment conferred standing upon the state’s voters, whose votes would be diluted by the loss of a representative. 525 U.S. at 330-32. There, residents of thirteen states (among other plaintiffs) claimed the Census Bureau’s planned use of statistical sampling to apportion representatives among the states violated federal law. Id. at 327. The Court held that one of the plaintiffs, a resident of Indiana, “undoubtedly satisfie[d] the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing” based on evidence that “Indiana [was] virtually certain to lose a seat” if the Bureau used its planned sampling techniques. Id. at 331. “With one fewer Representative,” the Court reasoned, “Indiana residents’ votes will be diluted” (since its citizens would be forced to vote in more populous districts). Id. at 332.
Finally, in Utah v. Evans, Utah challenged a census practice that caused it to lose one congressional representative to North Carolina following the 2000 census. 536 U.S. at 458-59. Relying on Franklin, the Court unambiguously held that Utah had standing to challenge the practice based on its loss of a representative. Id. at 459-64.
Here, Alabama and Representative Brooks (who is a registered voter in Alabama) have clearly alleged that Alabama will lose a representative if illegal aliens are included in the apportionment base following the 2020 census. On its face, that allegation is entirely plausible and is supported by specific factual averments in the complaint. According to the complaint, including illegal aliens in the apportionment base will impact the distribution of seats in the
the [Justices] . . . bind lower courts . . . .”); id. § 20, at 206 (explaining that when no single opinion garners majority endorsement, lower courts should “reach the result with which a majority of the Justices who decided the relevant precedent would necessarily agree”).
10

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 11 of 22
House of Representatives “because the United States’ illegal alien population is both large and highly concentrated.” (Doc. # 1 at 11, ¶ 33). Estimates suggest that there are more than 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States, and that most of those individuals live in only a few states. (Id. at 10-12, ¶¶ 30, 35-36). At various points in the past two decades, federal agencies have estimated that 73 percent of illegal aliens live in only ten states; over 61 percent in just six states; and half in just three states. (Id. at 11-12, ¶¶ 35-36). According to Plaintiffs, the federal government’s practice of including millions of these unevenly distributed illegal aliens in the apportionment base has already caused other states to lose House seats in previous decennial apportionments. (Id. at 11-14, ¶¶ 33, 37-45).
House seats and Electoral College Vote changes between the states are part of a zero sum game. When one state gains a House seat (and a corresponding additional Electoral College vote), by force of mathematics, that gain must be balanced by the loss of a House seat (and Electoral College vote) in another state. In the 2000 apportionment, for example, Plaintiffs allege the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base caused Indiana, Michigan, and Mississippi to each lose one House seat they otherwise would have retained, and prevented Montana from receiving a House seat it otherwise would have gained. (Id. at 12-13, ¶ 42). Likewise in the 2010 apportionment, inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base allegedly caused Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio to each lose one House seat they otherwise would have retained, and again prevented Montana from receiving a House Seat it otherwise would have gained. (Id. at 13-14, ¶¶ 44-45).
Plaintiffs allege that inclusion of illegal aliens in the 2020 apportionment base will cause Alabama to suffer the same fate that other states with relatively low illegal alien populations have suffered in past apportionments. (Id. at 15-18, ¶¶ 50-72). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
11

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 12 of 22
an apportionment done using the method of equal proportions4 will cause Alabama to lose one House seat if illegal aliens are included in the apportionment base. (Id. at 15-16, ¶¶ 51-58). To demonstrate that this will occur, Plaintiffs say all one must do is “remov[e] the estimated illegal alien population from each state’s projected total population and recalculat[e] the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives using the method of equal proportions.” (Id. at 15, ¶ 51). The detailed and plausible allegations Plaintiffs have provided readily satisfy their burden at the pleading stage to “clearly allege facts demonstrating” an injury in fact. Aaron, 912 F.3d at 1336 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The federal defendants do not dispute that, as a general matter, the loss of a representative is a cognizable Article III injury. They instead argue that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries are too speculative to confer standing because it is impossible to know at this point (i.e., pre-census) whether Alabama will in fact lose a representative. (Doc. # 45-1 at 8-11). In Defendants’ view, the very nature of the apportionment process makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to bring a pre-census challenge of this sort.
In particular, due to the nature of the apportionment process, Defendants contend Plaintiffs cannot show Alabama is in fact likely lose a congressional representative following the 2020 census if illegal aliens are included in the apportionment base. Under the method of equal proportions, Defendants explain, the number of House seats each state receives depends not just on the state’s own population, but on the population of other states as well. (Id. at 10). And because it is impossible to know each state’s projected total population (including the illegal alien population) in advance of the census, Defendants claim it is impossible to know with any certainty whether Alabama is likely to lose a House seat. (Id. at 10-11). And, as Defendants note,
4 The “method of equal proportions” is the statutorily required method of congressional apportionment. See 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a). The Census Bureau has provided a detailed explanation of the method on its website. (Doc. # 1 at 15, ¶ 53).
12

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 13 of 22
purely speculative future injuries are insufficient to confer Article III standing. See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 410-14 (2013).
This objection might ultimately prove valid, but it must be raised in a motion for summary judgment (or at trial) rather than in a motion to dismiss. At the pleading stage, courts evaluate standing based on the facts alleged in the complaint. Aaron, 912 F.3d at 1336. And in facial challenges like this one, courts must accept the plausible factual allegations of a complaint as true. Muransky, 922 F.3d at 1184; Houston, 733 F.3d at 1335-36. Here, Plaintiffs have clearly and plausibly alleged that Alabama will lose one congressional representative following the 2020 census if illegal aliens are not excluded from the apportionment base. The mere fact that Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries will occur in the future, when the 2020 apportionment occurs, is not enough to defeat standing. See Dep’t of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 332 (explaining that “it is certainly not necessary for this Court to wait until the census has been conducted to consider” claims based on the expected future loss of a congressional representative).
At oral argument, Defendants attempted to distinguish Department of Commerce on the ground that the census practice challenged there (the Bureau’s planned use of statistical sampling to supplement data obtained through traditional census methods, see 525 U.S. at 324) is different from the census practice challenged here (the Bureau’s inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base). But this difference is irrelevant to the standing inquiry. What matters for standing purposes is that in both Department of Commerce and this case, the plaintiffs brought a pre-census challenge alleging that a particular census practice would cause their state to lose a House seat. The Court found standing in Department of Commerce (and, to be sure, did so at the summary judgment stage). Id. at 330-32. That finding was based on the affidavit of an expert who determined that, under the Bureau’s proposed plan, it was “a virtual certainty that Indiana
13

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 14 of 22
will lose a seat.” Id. at 330. Here, at the pleading stage, the court must accept as true Plaintiffs’ clear and plausible allegation that Alabama will lose a House seat if illegal aliens are included in the 2020 apportionment base, just as the Supreme Court accepted the expert affidavit in Department of Commerce as true for purposes of summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ allegations of injury are sufficient survive Defendants’ facial attack on standing.
The Supreme Court has taught us that it is Plaintiffs’ burden to support each element of standing “with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. At the summary judgment stage, that means Plaintiffs “can no longer rest on . . . ‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts,’ which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken to be true.” Id. (internal citation omitted). And at trial, of course, facts relevant to the standing inquiry “(if controverted) must be supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Lujan’s teachings are instructive here. Because this case is currently at the pleading stage, now is not the time to decide whether Alabama will ultimately be able to offer evidence showing that it will likely lose a congressional representative if illegal aliens are included in the 2020 apportionment base. It is enough, for now, that Alabama has clearly and plausibly alleged that it will.
2. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries Are Fairly Traceable to Defendants’ Conduct There is no doubt Plaintiffs satisfy the second element of standing: their alleged injuries are fairly traceable to Defendants’ challenged conduct in this case. It is the federal defendants’ decision to count illegal aliens in the 2020 census and include those individuals in the 2020 apportionment base that Plaintiffs allege will lead to Alabama losing a congressional representative. The Supreme Court has consistently found the causation element of standing
14

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 15 of 22
satisfied when plaintiffs challenge a census practice that they either (depending on the stage of litigation) show or plausibly allege will result in their state losing a congressional representative. See Franklin, 505 U.S. at 801-03 (four-Justice plurality); id. at 824 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); Dep’t of Commerce, 525 U.S. at 332; Utah, 536 U.S. at 459-64. And this case is no different. Plaintiffs have adequately alleged injuries that are fairly traceable to Defendants’ decision to count illegal aliens in the 2020 census and include those aliens in the 2020 apportionment base.
3. Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injuries Would Likely Be Redressed by a Favorable Decision
The first two elements of standing are readily satisfied by plausible allegations that a particular census practice will cause a state to lose a congressional representative. But the third element, redressability, has previously been described by the Supreme Court as presenting a “thornier standing question” in this context. Franklin, 505 U.S. at 802 (plurality opinion). Thorny as that question may have once been, however, it has now been settled by binding Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent.
In Franklin, the Supreme Court failed to expressly resolve whether an injury such as the one Plaintiffs allege here could be redressed by a federal court order. There (as here), the plaintiffs sought to exclude certain individuals from the congressional apportionment base. (In Franklin, the plaintiffs sought to exclude overseas federal employees; here, Plaintiffs seek to exclude illegal aliens). The thorny redressability issue identified by the Court in Franklin arose from the President’s role in the apportionment process.
By statute, the number of representatives each state is “entitled” to following reapportionment is determined by a “statement” that the President must “transmit” to Congress. 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a), (b). The President’s statement must show “the whole number of persons in each
15

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 16 of 22
State . . . as ascertained under the . . . decennial census” and “the number of Representatives to which each State [is] entitled” under the method of equal proportions. Id. § 2a(a). And it is not until the President transmits his statement to Congress that representatives are finally apportioned to the states. Id. § 2a(b).
Prior to the President transmitting his statement to Congress, another federal statute requires the Secretary of Commerce to submit to the President “[t]he tabulation of total population by States . . . as required for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States.” 13 U.S.C. § 141(b). But, as the Franklin Court recognized, the President is not bound to follow the Secretary’s tabulation of the states’ total populations, at least insomuch as the Secretary’s tabulation rests on “policy judgments” concerning how best to determine the total population of each state. 505 U.S. at 799 (“To reiterate, § 2a does not curtail the President’s authority to direct the Secretary in making policy judgments that result in ‘the decennial census’; he is not expressly required to adhere to the policy decisions reflected in the Secretary’s report.”). Because the President is not necessarily bound to follow the Secretary’s tabulation, “the action that creates an entitlement to a particular number of Representatives . . . is the President’s statement to Congress, not the Secretary’s report to the President.” Id. at 797.
Given the President’s critical role in the apportionment process, it would be natural to conclude that the only way to redress an injury based on the (allegedly improper) inclusion of certain individuals in the apportionment base would be an order requiring the President to exclude the relevant individuals from the apportionment base used to generate his statement to Congress. After all, as the President is not required to accept the Secretary’s tabulation of state populations (at least to the extent the tabulation is based on “policy decisions”, id. at 799), and as a state is not entitled to a particular number of representatives until the President transmits his
16

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 17 of 22
statement to Congress, simply requiring the Secretary to change the apportionment base would not itself ensure relief. (To put it bluntly, the argument goes like this: even if the Secretary were ordered to exclude the relevant individuals from the apportionment base, the President could always choose to include them.)
That relief against the President was deemed necessary in order to redress Massachusetts’ loss of a representative was evidently precisely the reason the district court in Franklin included the President in its order granting relief. The district court there entered an injunction both directing the Secretary to exclude the overseas federal employees from the apportionment base and ordering the President to amend his statement based on the new apportionment base and retransmit his new statement to Congress, thereby ensuring that Massachusetts would regain its lost representative. Id. at 791, 802.
Though the district court’s order in Franklin no doubt redressed the plaintiffs’ injury, there was one problem: the district court had entered an injunction against a sitting President, which was “extraordinary, and should have raised judicial eyebrows.” Id. at 802 (plurality opinion). The plurality in Franklin explained that, while it was an open question whether “the President might be subject to a judicial injunction requiring the performance of a purely ‘ministerial’ duty,” there was little doubt that “‘this court has no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties.’” Id. at 802-03 (quoting Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475, 498-99, 501 (1866)). Justice Scalia, concurring in the judgment, agreed: “It is a commentary upon the level to which judicial understanding—indeed, even judicial awareness—of the doctrine of separation of powers has fallen, that the District Court entered this order against the President without blinking an eye. I think it clear that no court has authority to direct the President to take an official act.” Id. at 825.
17

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 18 of 22
But if only relief against the President could ensure Massachusetts would regain its lost representative, and if the federal courts were powerless to order that relief, how could Massachusetts’ injury be redressed? Here the Franklin plurality and Justice Scalia parted ways. The plurality thought there was no need to decide “whether injunctive relief against the President was appropriate,” because, in any event, the plaintiffs’ injury was “likely to be redressed by declaratory relief against the Secretary alone.” Id. at 803. In the plurality’s view, Massachusetts’ loss of a representative was redressable because it was “substantially likely” that the President and other government officials “would abide by an authoritative interpretation of the census statute and constitutional provision by the District Court, even though they would not be directly bound by such a determination.” Id. Justice Scalia disagreed. In his view, “[i]f courts may simply assume that everyone (including those who are not proper parties to an action) will honor the legal rationales that underlie their decrees, then redressability will always exist.” Id. at 825. For Justice Scalia, redressability required “that the court be able to afford relief through the exercise of its power, not through the persuasive or even awe-inspiring effect of the opinion explaining the exercise of its power.” Id. And, because no court had authority to enjoin the President with respect to his official conduct, Justice Scalia believed no court could redress Massachusetts’ injury through the exercise of its power. Id.
In Franklin, therefore, there was no controlling five-Justice opinion regarding whether Massachusetts’ loss of a representative was redressable.5 Nearly a decade after Franklin, however, the Eleventh Circuit confronted a similar redressability issue and adopted the Franklin plurality’s reasoning. See Made in the USA, 242 F.3d at 1308-09. In Made in the USA, a group of
5 Curiously (as noted above), a separate four-Justice plurality in Franklin reached (and rejected) the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, but did not join the section of Justice O’Connor’s opinion finding that plaintiffs had standing (and that their injury was redressable). Franklin, 505 U.S. at 807-23 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Arguably, therefore, those four Justices must necessarily have agreed that Massachusetts’ injury was redressable, even though they did not expressly say so.
18

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 19 of 22
national and local labor organizations challenged the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) as unconstitutionally void because it was never approved by the constitutionally prescribed procedures governing treaty ratification, see Article II, § 2. 242 F.3d at 1302. The plaintiffs alleged they had been injured by NAFTA’s enactment due to “lost jobs, reduced wages and bargaining power, as well as diminished capacity to buy American-made products.” Id. at 1306 n.13. Among the relief plaintiffs sought was “an order directing the President to notify the governments of Mexico and Canada that the United States would be terminating its participation in NAFTA within thirty days.” Id. at 1307. Naturally, the government responded by arguing that the plaintiffs’ injuries were not redressable because federal courts “lack[ ] the requisite authority to order the President to notify Mexico and Canada of this nation’s withdrawal from NAFTA.” Id. at 1308.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected the government’s redressability argument, however, “relying chiefly on the reasoning employed in the plurality portion of the Court’s opinion in” Franklin. Id. at 1309. Even though the Eleventh Circuit panel accepted that there was “serious doubt as to whether courts have the power to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties,” the court found redressability under the plurality’s reasoning in Franklin because “there are numerous subordinate executive officials engaged in the continued operation and enforcement of NAFTA’s provisions” against whom relief could be ordered. Id. at 1310 & n.25. The court found “persuasive” the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit that relief against lower executive-branch officials can be “sufficient for redressability” even if “the President has the power, if he chose, to undercut [that] relief.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the court concluded, “even short of directly ordering the President to terminate our nation’s
19

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 20 of 22
participation in NAFTA, a judicial order instructing subordinate executive officials to cease their compliance with its provisions would suffice” to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. Id. at 1310-11.
Under Made in the USA (which is binding precedent), it seems clear that Plaintiffs in this case can establish redressability if there are subordinate executive-branch officials against whom “partial relief” may be obtained. Id. at 1310. And to be sure, there are—Plaintiffs here seek relief against both the Secretary of Commerce and the Acting Director of the Census Bureau, two federal officials charged with conducting the census. If Plaintiffs succeed on the merits of their claims, the court can award them their requested relief and enter a judgment against those officials declaring it unlawful to include illegal aliens in the apportionment base following the 2020 census. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (codification of the Declaratory Judgment Act); (Doc. # 1 at 34, ¶ 158b) (Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief). Plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are therefore redressable under Made in the USA.
And were there any doubt that Made in the USA settled the redressability issue (at least in this Circuit), the Supreme Court has since clarified in no uncertain terms that states have standing to challenge census practices that cause them to lose a congressional seat, notwithstanding the statutory provisions that vest the President with the authority to issue the “statement” that ultimately determines each state’s congressional delegation. See Utah, 536 U.S. at 459-64. In Utah, that state challenged a census counting practice that caused it to lose one congressional representative to North Carolina following the 2000 census. Id. at 458-59. Specifically, the Census Bureau had included an additional 1.2 million people in the apportionment base by inferring that certain addresses about which the Bureau had been unable to obtain population information likely had the same population characteristics as those of a nearby sample address about which the Bureau had successfully obtained population
20

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 21 of 22
information. Id. at 457-58. The inclusion of those additional 1.2 million people in the apportionment base shifted a representative from Utah to North Carolina. Id. at 458. Utah sued, claiming it was unlawful for the Bureau to include the additional 1.2 million “imputed” people in the apportionment base. Id. at 459.
North Carolina (wishing to keep its extra representative) intervened in the case and argued that Utah lacked standing because its loss of a representative was not redressable by court-ordered relief. Id. at 459, 461. North Carolina made essentially the same argument as Justice Scalia did in Franklin: Because all the Court could do was order the Secretary of Commerce to submit a new report to the President with new apportionment figures (excluding the 1.2 million imputed persons), a court order would not, of its own force, change the number of representatives to which Utah was entitled—since the President could always choose not to accept the new figures and decline to transmit a new statement to Congress. Id. at 461-62.6 But the Court rejected North Carolina’s argument and held instead that a court order requiring the Secretary to revise his report to the President would sufficiently redress Utah’s injury. Id. at 46263. That was so, the Court said, because if the Secretary’s new report required a representative to be shifted from North Carolina back to Utah, “the relevant calculations and consequent apportionment-related steps would be purely mechanical.” Id. at 463. Further, it seemed to the Utah Court (just as it had to the Franklin plurality) “substantially likely that the President and other executive and congressional officials would abide by an authoritative interpretation of the census statute and constitutional provision.” Id. at 463-64 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court therefore concluded Utah’s injury was redressable and held that the state had standing. Id.
6 In Utah (which involved a post-census challenge), the President had already transmitted his initial statement to Congress. 536 U.S. at 461-62.
21

Case 2:18-cv-00772-RDP Document 84 Filed 06/05/19 Page 22 of 22
This case is materially indistinguishable from Utah. Here, as in Utah, Plaintiffs seek to exclude a certain group of people (illegal aliens) from the population base used to apportion congressional seats among the states. And, also as in Utah, Plaintiffs here seek merely “a declaration leading, or an injunction requiring,” the Secretary to exclude the relevant class of persons from the apportionment base; they do not seek relief against the President himself. Id. at 463; (Doc. # 1 at 34, ¶ 158). Because the Supreme Court held Utah’s injury redressable under these circumstances, Alabama’s alleged injury is likewise redressable for purposes of Article III standing. IV. Conclusion
To state the obvious, the court today expresses no view on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claim that including illegal aliens in the population base used to apportion congressional seats among the states violates federal law. It merely holds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged facts sufficient to establish that they have Article III standing to assert that claim. For that reason, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due to be denied. A separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion will be entered.
DONE and ORDERED this June 5, 2019.
_________________________________ R. DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22