Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05312/USCOURTS-caDC-94-05312-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued October 6, 1995 Decided August 9, 1996

No. 94-5312

NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY, ET AL.,

APPELLANTS

v.

MICHAEL KANTOR, ET AL.,

APPELLEES

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(92cv2257)

Bruce J. Casino argued the cause for appellants, with whom Daniel E. Loeb and Maria Foscarinis

were on the briefs.

Michael S. Raab, Attorney, United States Department ofJustice, argued the cause for appellees, with

whom Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney,

and Mark B. Stern, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, were on the brief.

Before: WALD, SILBERMAN, and SENTELLE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge SILBERMAN.

SILBERMAN, Circuit Judge: Appellants appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment

on their challenge to the Census Bureau's count of homeless persons during the 1990 census.

Appellants lack standing, and therefore we affirm.

I.

The Census Bureau has, since its creation, undertaken the difficult task of counting homeless

persons, originally called "outdoor paupers," as part of the decennial census. Its most recent and

most involved effort, Shelter and Street Night (S-Night) in connection with the 1990 census, took

place between 6:00 p.m. on March 20 and 8:00 a.m. on March 21, 1990. During S-Night, more than

22,600 enumerators in 5,050 jurisdictions counted homeless persons at 10,600 emergency shelters

and 24,300 street locations, thereby adding some 229,000 persons to the rolls. In assembling its list

of shelters and street sites, the Bureau contacted roughly 39,000 jurisdictions, 14,200 of which

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1 The number 34,000, we are told, is exaggerated. Many of the 39,000 jurisdictions contacted

overlapped in area and population with others such that at least some persons counted in the

5,050 jurisdictions enumerated on S-Night might also have been located in some of the 34,000

jurisdictions not enumerated. In any event, it is undisputed that no S-Night efforts took place in a

large number of jurisdictions. 

responded, some providing locationsfrequented by homeless persons, some stating that they had no

homeless persons within their borders. Twenty-five jurisdictions with more than 50,000 residents did

not respond at all. The Census Bureau consulted with "knowledgeable local persons" in those

jurisdictions to add shelter and street locations to its list. S-Night operations took place in every

jurisdiction with more than 50,000 residents and in all shelters identified by the Bureau in less

populous jurisdictions.

Despite these efforts, the S-Night procedures missed many of the homeless. If they were

located in the roughly 34,000 jurisdictions where the Bureau did not send enumerators, they were,

of course, not counted.1 Homeless people who spent S-Night outside shelters or the identified street

locations were not counted. These "hidden homeless," who slept in "boxes, under tarps, in bushes

or trees, shanty structures, automobiles,subways, roofs, dumpsters, or caves," placestoo dangerous

for unaccompanied enumerators to visit, were not counted. National Law Center on Homelessness

& Poverty v. Brown, Civ. Act. No. 92-2257, Mem. Op. at 4 (D.D.C. Sept. 15, 1994). Homeless

persons who spent S-Night in other locations, including "halfway houses to treat substance abuse,

maternity homes for unwed mothers, [and] group homes for the mentally ill," also were not counted

on S-Night (though they might have been counted during other census operations). Id. at 5 n.4. The

Census Bureau commissioned independent observers to monitor S-Night in Chicago, Los Angeles,

New Orleans, New York, and Phoenix. The observers concluded that, even at the street sites where

enumerators were sent, between 29 and 72% ofthe homeless were missed. A review of the S-Night's

shelter portion concluded that as many as 48% of the shelters identified by the observers were not

on the Bureau's list. The Bureau, when it released the S-Night figures, noted many but not all of

these limitations on the S-Night data both in its press release and in information included with the

data.

Appellantsthe cities of Baltimore and San Francisco, the United States Conference of

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Mayors, one national and five regional homeless advocacy groups, twelve providers of services to

homeless persons, eight homeless persons, and three registered voterssued, inter alia, theSecretary

of Commerce and the Census Bureau. The plaintiffs disputed the count of homeless in the census as

too lowand contended that the government's procedures violated theCensusClause, itsimplementing

statutes, and the Equal Protection Clause. The Bureau's unwillingness to publish a more

comprehensive disclaimer setting forth the data's inadequacies was alleged to violate the APA.

Pretermitting the plaintiffs' standing, the district court granted the government summary judgment

on the merits. The court determined that review of S-Night under the APA was foreclosed by

Franklin v. Massachusetts, 112 S. Ct. 2767, 2773-74 (1992), and rejected appellants' constitutional

and statutory claims.

II.

Appellants reiterate their challenges to the census before us. But we are obliged to consider

first their standing to raise them. The district court thought the "standing issues this case presents

involve several different types of plaintiffs, and their resolution would involve contemplation of

sensitive constitutional issues," and avoided them because "[c]ourtsshould confront such issues only

where "absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.' " National Law Center on Homelessness &

Poverty, Mem. Op. at 8 (quoting Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 346-47 (1936)

(Brandeis, J., concurring)).

This approach isfundamentallyat odds with the constitutional case and controversylimitation

on the jurisdiction offederal courts. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("The

federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, and standing "is

perhaps the most important of [the jurisdictional] doctrines.' ") (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S.

737, 750 (1984)); Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Babbitt, 46 F.3d 93, 96 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

If plaintiffslack standing, there is not a case or controversy and therefore a federal court should take

no action beyond dismissalfor lack ofjurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560

(1992). To be sure, we have fashioned an extremely narrow exception (rather controversial at that,

see Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc. v. ICC, 934 F.2d 327, 339-346 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (Thomas, J.,

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

concurring)), to our obligation to determine our jurisdiction: " "when the merits of a case are clearly

against the party seeking to invoke the court's jurisdiction, the jurisdictional question is especially

difficult and far-reaching, and the inadequaciesin the record or briefing make the case a poor vehicle

for deciding the jurisdictional question, we may rule on the merits without reaching' the jurisdictional

contention." Cross-Sound Ferry Servs., Inc., 934 F.2d at 333 (quoting Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d

950, 954 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1978)); see also Burlington Northern R.R. Co. v. ICC, 985 F.2d 589, 593-94

(D.C. Cir. 1993) (court did not resolve "exceptionally difficult" jurisdictional question where merits

in portion of case over which jurisdiction was contested were necessarily resolved in portion of case

over which jurisdiction was clear). The district court may have had this exception in mind, but this

is not the rare case that occasions resort to it.

Although the partiesfought a pitched battle overstanding below, following the district court's

lead, they mentioned it only in passing before us. In the district court filings, appellants, which fall

into three broad categories, point to a variety of distinct injuries. Advocates for the homeless assert

their efforts to achieve their "fundamental purposes" have been frustrated because S-Night's

artificially low homeless count and the Bureau'sinadequate disclaimer make it more difficult for these

organizations to gain benefits for homeless persons. They claim to have been forced to expend their

resources counteracting the misinformation resulting from S-Night and gathering and disseminating

accurate information. Recipients of federal fundsmunicipalities, shelter and service providers, and

individual homeless personsassert that the homeless undercount willreduce the federal funds they

receive from programs that disburse monies based on census data. Individual registered voters

contend that the undercount diluted their votes relative to voters within and without their states. All

appellantstherefore seek a declaration that the census'shortcomings violate theConstitution and laws

of the United States, an order to the Bureau to adopt an assertedly better disclaimer, the appointment

of a special commission to establish a better means of counting the homeless, and an order to the

Bureau to conduct a new homeless count in accordance with the commission's findings.

III.

Appellants, as the "party invoking federal jurisdiction," must show injury in fact fairly

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2 The affidavits of advocacy groups other than NLC are generally to like effect. Where they

differ, they offer a less compelling case for organizational standing. Compare, e.g., Decl. of

Robert Erlenbusch, Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment (Feb. 9, 1993), Exh. 15 at 1-2 ("The Census Bureau's exclusion of

homeless persons from the decennial Census will undermine the [Los Angeles County Coalition to

End Homelessness's] attempts to advocate for and educate about homeless persons by giving the

public an inaccurate picture of homelessness.") with Community for Creative Non-Violence v.

Pierce, 814 F.2d 663, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (possibility that government homelessness report will

cause persons "no longer [to] perceive homelessness as a severe and pressing problem," thereby

lending them to reduce contributions of time, money, and resources, does not give standing to

challenge the report). The United States Conference of Mayors averred injury to its

organizational purposes in the complaint, but provides nothing in its affidavit concerning

frustration of its fundamental purpose. Also in the complaint, the Conference alleged that "as the

representative of its member mayors, [it] will continue to be injured by virtue of the

underallocation of federal government monies to cities of whom its members are mayors." As is

demonstrated infra, we cannot determine whether S-Night has caused any citymuch less any

city's mayorfunding injury. 

traceable to the defendants' actions and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 560-61. Since the district court dismissed the case at the summary judgment

stage, appellants "can no longer rest on ... "mere allegations,' but must "set forth' by affidavit or other

evidence "specific facts,' FED. RULE. CIV. PROC. 56(e)," id., 504 U.S. at 561, supporting these

contentions.

A.

Homeless advocates put their injury on grounds that the fundamental purposes of their

organizations have been frustrated and that they have had to expend the resources to counter the

Bureau's alleged violations. The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLC) lists its

purposes as:

vindicating the legal rights of the homeless and poor; ensuring that homeless and

poor persons receive their fair share of assistance under existing federal programs;

ensuring that homeless and poor persons receive fair political representation;

educating the public by disseminating accurate information about homelessness and

poverty; and developing and pressing for new public policies to end homelessness.2

Although these objectives are undeniably quite broad, we cannot discern any interference with them

caused by S-Night. We do not see any connectionand none is suggestedbetween an undercount

of the homeless and the frustration of NLC's purpose to ensure that homeless persons receive their

"fair share of assistance under existing federal programs," or its effortsto "vindicat[e] the legalrights

of the homeless and poor." It is certainly not apparent from appellants' affidavits why a homeless

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3

It follows that appellants cannot claim that they are injured by the inadequacy of the Bureau's

disclaimer. Without any idea what would be the effects on appellants' organizational purposes of

either perfect or perfectly dreadful S-Night data, we surely cannot know what effect, if any, a

complete disclaimer would have had. We wonder if it would have had any: the shortcomings of

S-Night argued before us were presented also to Congress. See Joint Hearing on Quality and

Limitations of the S-Night Homeless Count Before the Subcomm. on Government Information

and Regulation of the Senate Comm. on Governmental Affairs and the Subcomm. on Census and

Population of the House Comm. on Post Office and Civil Service, 102nd Cong., 1st Sess. 26-50

(1991). 

undercount makes it more difficult to aid any particular homeless person or groups of the homeless

in receiving funds under an existing program or vindicating their rights. NLC also contends that it

"works to ensure that homeless persons receive fair political representation ... including promoting

policies to ensure that homeless persons are permitted to register to vote, promoting efforts to

register homeless voters, and promoting efforts to encourage homeless persons to vote." But it is

also not apparent why an undercount of the total number of homeless would affect NLC's efforts to

encourage the homelessto vote. NLC has not suggested that it, in any way, relies on census numbers

to target the homeless.

That leaves NLC's objective to "educat[e] the public by disseminating accurate information

about homelessness and poverty" and to "develop[ ] and press[ ] for new public policies to end

homelessness." According to its affidavit, the failure of the Census Bureau "properly to enumerate

the nation's homeless" has caused NLC to "devote[ ] substantial resources to gathering information

from numerous other sources in an effort to piece together estimates of the homeless population ...

in order to fulfill its purpose of providing accurate information on homelessness and poverty." This

information-dissemination objective, however, appears not to be free standing, but ancillaryto NLC's

general approach of gaining governmental responses to improve the lot of the homeless. (NLC does

not claimto be a newsreporting agency.) Appellants implicitly claim that an undercount of homeless

would lead the public and thereby the government to provide less support to the homeless. But that

is the far end of speculation. How the American people would react to a census count that would

arguably show more homeless than S-Night counted is surely imponderable. And how that reaction

would translate into a governmental response is even more imponderable.3It is by no means

inevitable or even likely that Congress would respond by increasing resources for the homeless.

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

4 Appellants do not contend, nor do we think they could establish, that they are injured as

competitorsi.e., that they are disadvantaged vis-a-vis a direct competitor in a contest for, say,

federal funds. 

Instead, Congress might (as has been suggested for the welfare population) look to disincentives

which actually would decrease resources for the homeless.4In Community for Creative NonViolence v. Pierce, 814 F.2d 663, 669 (D.C. Cir. 1987), we rejected astoo tenuousthe argument that

a governmental report that allegedly downplayed the homelessness problem would lead to less

support for homeless persons. The contention that a larger homeless count would lead to greater

allocations seems at least equally conjectural.

For this reason, appellants' reliance on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363

(1982), and Spann v. Colonial Village, Inc., 899 F.2d 24, 28-29 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S.

980 and 498 U.S. 1046 (1990), does not help them. In those cases, fair housing advocates were

forced to expend resources to counter defendants' "racial steering" practices that had diverted

minority persons away from available housing. In Spann, housing advertisements exclusively

depicting white models were said to "indicate a preference based on race" which discouraged

non-white applicants from responding. We held that:

increased education and counseling could plausibly be required ... to identify and

inform minorities, steered away from defendants' complexes by the challenged ads,

that defendants' housing is by law open to all. Educational programs might

complementarilybe necessaryto rebut anypublic impressionthe advertisementsmight

generate that racial discrimination in housing is permissible.

Id. Defendants' dissemination of inaccurate information implying that housing was only available to

whites erected barriers to realization of the fair housing advocates' purpose of securing "equality of

opportunity for minorities and others in housing." Id. at 28. Part of the housing market appeared

foreclosed to those minorities, and the fair housing advocates were compelled to provide accurate

information to those minorities to overcome these artificial barriers. Appellants do not show that a

homeless undercount similarly imposes any such barriers to either the homeless or their advocates.

Even if NLC had an independent, information-dissemination purposeunrelated to policy

objectiveswe can discern no injury. Since NLC does not claim to rely on census data for the

information it ordinarily disseminates, it cannot very well claim that its information-gathering efforts

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

have been hampered because one of its sources has been compromised. NLC collected and

disseminated information on the homeless before S-Night, and has done so since. Its expenditures

ongathering and publishing homelessness data appearto be part ofits ordinaryprogramexpenditures.

In National Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1434 (D.C. Cir. 1995), an

organization challenging a change in the federal gift tax rates sought to establish standing by noting

that "it ha[d] expended resources to educate its members and others regarding [the challenged

section.]" But there was "no evidence that [the challenged section] ha[d] subjected NTU to

operational costs beyond those normally expended to review, challenge, and educate the public about

revenue-related legislation." Id. Similarly, here, NLC's efforts at gathering information appear wholly

unrelated to the census data.

If the organizational appellants established injury, they would face another problem, which

all other appellants encountercausation. To demonstrate that their injury was caused by the SNight count, appellants must show that the homeless were improperly undercounted by the S-Night

methodology as compared to a feasible, alternative methodology. See Franklin, 112 S. Ct. at 2776

(plurality) (challengersto the allocation of overseas employees among states had "neither alleged nor

shown ... that Massachusetts would have an additionalRepresentative ifthe allocation had been done

using some othersource of "more accurate' data" and accordingly did not have standing "to challenge

the accuracy of the data used in making that allocation"). If any other methodology would have

produced comparablylimited results, then theBureau'sselection ofthe S-Night procedure has caused

appellants no injury.

Appellants, of course, do not assert that the homeless could be counted by any method with

absolute accuracy. But they do not present an alternative approach that, taking into account all the

peculiar factors that make counting the homeless inherently difficult, promises any significantly

different result. Below, appellants suggested some steps that the Bureau could have taken to "include

both the "hidden homeless' and the omitted jurisdictions in its enumeration." These include

supplementing the nighttime count with "a daytime count over a period oftime," follow-up interviews

after S-Night, and statisticalsampling and projection methods. While appellants need not identify an

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

enumeration methodology free from all doubt or controversy, it is not clear fromthe affidavits before

us that these suggested changes in the enumeration procedures would yield a higher number of

homeless. Appellants do not, for example, offer a solution to the "double-counting" problem. The

CensusBureau concluded that effortsto record homeless persons' namesmight actuallyincrease their

resistance to being counted, reducing S-Night's effectiveness. Accordingly, many homeless persons

on S-Night were counted without providing their names or, often, without their knowledge. Any post

hoc effort to supplement S-Night might have counted these persons twice. But any effort to reduce

the double-counting problem(by,for example,requiring counted personsto provide their names)may

have reduced the number of people who were counted in the first place. One of appellants'

submissions acknowledgesthe double-counting problemand suggestsinterviewing homeless persons

to avoid it. No mention is made, however, of the possible deterrent effect on the initial count of using

interviews.

As a corollary to appellants' difficulties in establishing causationindeed reflective of those

difficultiesappellants do not demonstrate that our order willredresstheir injury. They do not even

ask that the alternative methodologiessuggested in their affidavits be employed in a recount. Rather,

they would have us appoint a commission to formulate a better methodology. We can hardly assume

that a commission of as-yet unnamed persons, using as-yet unidentified methodologies, will devise

a better homeless count that will redound to appellants' benefit.

B.

Recipients of federal fundsthe cities of Baltimore and San Francisco, the providers of

services to the homeless, and homeless individualscontend that S-Night's undercount will reduce

the monies that they receive under programs that base disbursements on census data. The cities

receive federal monies pursuant to a host of "census-based" programs both directly and through

Maryland and California. The various shelter and service providers also receive federal funds,

typicallyunder the FederalEmergencyManagement Agency's(FEMA) Emergency Food and Shelter

(EFS) National Board Program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

Individual homeless appellants are beneficiaries of federal funds through the services of appellant

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

providers and others like them. Thus, the causal chain between the Bureau's actions and these

appellants is one link longer than that of appellant providers. So we may assume that if cities or

providers who serve these individuals have not established standing, neither have the individuals.

Appellants assert injury in fact by contending that they have lost or will lose money in the aftermath

ofthe census. But they do not explain how the census or the S-Night procedures on which they focus

caused these losses. Our review of programs singled out by appellants reveals that appellants may

be better off than they would have been after a hypothetical more accurate homeless count. Three

examples will suffice to demonstrate their difficulty.

Most of the service providers allege that they receive money from FEMA's EFS National

Board Programand contend that "FEMA money is allocated on a formula based on decennialCensus

data." That the formula is census-based, however, does not mean that a better homeless count would

have affected anyprovider'sEFS receipts. The DeputyChairman of the EFS National Board, Richard

A. Robuck, states in his affidavit that the EFS program's formula "uses unemployment rates and

poverty ratesto qualifya communityfor funding.... While the [census-based] poverty rate can qualify

a community for funding, the actual allocation dollar amount is determined by the average number

of unemployed as derived fromthe Bureau ofLabor Statistics(BLS) numbers." It appears, then, that

providers who already receive funding (i.e., all appellant providers) have enjoyed all the benefit that

the census numbers affordqualificationand a higher count of the homeless would not have aided

them further. Robuck's affidavit also notes that Congress appropriates a fixed sum for the EFS

program, and disbursements are based on a per-capita amount for each unemployed person in a

qualifying community. If a better count revealed more homeless persons throughout the nation and

led to the qualification of more communities, already-qualified communities might have seen their

shares reduced. These communities, perhaps including Baltimore and San Francisco, might thus be

worse off under another, improved methodology.

That hypothetical better count's effect on receipts under the CDBG programunder which

almost all of the service providers claim to receive fundsis similarly indeterminate. According to

James R. Broughman, the Department of Housing and Urban Development official charged with

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

management of the program, one factor in the formula by which CDBG funds are disbursed to

communities, including Baltimore and San Francisco, is "population growth lag," a measure of

community growth since 1960 in comparison to the growth of other entitled grantees. To determine

whether and how a population-growth-lag community's receipts would be affected by a different

count, we would not only need to know how many persons would be added to the rolls, but how the

new population count comparesto that community's population over the last three decades, and how

the growth since 1960 compares to the growth of other communities. We have not been provided

any of this information. Broughman also notes that Congress authorizes a fixed amount of money

for the CDBG program. As with the EFS program, if a more accurate count had caused some

communities to become eligible for larger disbursements, San Francisco and Baltimore might have

had to make do with less.

Finally, appellants point to the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill Individuals Act of

1986, Pub. L. No. 99-319, 100 Stat. 478 (1986), amend. not in relevant part, Pub. L. No. 102-173,

105 Stat. 1217 (1991), as an example of a program for which "census data obviously are a key factor

in determining the total allocation," although it "utilize[s] other factors along with Census Bureau

population and poverty data." Fifty percent of allocations under the Act are based on a recipient's

state's census population as a percentage of the national census population. See Pub. L. No. 99-319,

§ 112, 100 Stat. 478, 483. But, we cannot tell whether San Francisco or Baltimore, which apparently

receive monies under the Act, would have gained from a better count. Even if such a count had

yielded a much larger homeless population in San Francisco, the overall increase in the total

population of California may have been small relative to the overall increase in the national

population from the better count. In these circumstances, the ratio of California's population to the

national population would have decreased, as would, therefore, San Francisco's receipts under the

Act.

In short, we cannot determineindeed we have no ideawhat effect any methodology for

counting the homeless would have on the federal funding of any particular appellant recipient. Our

review of the programs that apparently provide all federal funds received by appellant service

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

providers(the EFS andCDBG programs) and of another programpointed to byappellants below (the

Mentally IllIndividuals Act) indicatesthat a different count's effect on any one recipient depends both

on the use to which census data are put in a given program, and on the count's effects on other

recipients. The fact that, in most programs, the available funds are fixed means that if a more

accurate count would have enlarged some communities' shares, it likely would have reduced the

shares of other communitiesincluding, possibly, Baltimore, San Francisco, and the other

communities in which service providers are located. Even with a theoretically precise homeless

count, then, appellants may have gained nothing.

To be sure, general allegations that federal funding will be reduced by the conduct of the

census have been held sufficient to withstand motions to dismiss. See, e.g., City of Detroit v.

Franklin, 4 F.3d 1367, 1374 (6th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1217 (1994); Tucker v.

Department of Commerce, 958 F.2d at 1415-16 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 953 (1992); Carey

v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir. 1980); City of New York v. Dept. of Commerce, 713 F.

Supp. 48, 50-52 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); City of Willacoochee v. Baldrige, 556 F. Supp. 551, 554 (S.D.

Ga. 1983); City of Camden v. Plotkin, 466 F. Supp. 44, 47-51 (D.N.J. 1978). Butsee State of Texas

v. Mosbacher, 783 F. Supp. 308, 314 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (since Texasfailed to allege direct injury due

to loss of federal funds, no standing). As we noted, however, "mere allegations"which appear to

be all any plaintiff offered in the above casesare not an adequate response to a summary judgment

motion, when "specific facts" are required. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561. Appellants have

not met that test; they are unable to show that their injury, if any, was caused by the census count

of the homeless.

C.

Appellant voters claim that the census undercount of the homeless has diluted their vote

because their "Representative represents a greater number of constituents than do other

Representativesin the same assembly." Federation forAmerican Immigration Reform, 486 F. Supp.

564, 568 (D.D.C.) (three-judge court), appeal dismissed, 447 U.S. 916 (1980) (FAIR). They allege

that theylive in urban areas with disproportionatelyhigh homeless populations. Thus, when homeless

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

5 This hypothetical assumes that representatives are apportioned within the state based on total

population, rather than on qualified or registered voters. If apportionment were based only on the

number of registered voters, see, e.g., Garza v. County of Los Angeles, 918 F.2d 763, 780-86

(9th Cir. 1990), (concurring and dissenting in part), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1028 (1991), an

undercount of homeless might not result in any dilution if homeless persons are disproportionately

not registered to vote. We do not know either way, but we note that while some of the individual

appellants are described in the complaint as registered voters, none of the homeless appellants are. 

people throughout their states were undercounted, more persons were missed in their areas than in

less urban areas, and their representatives accordinglyhave more constituentsthan do representatives

ofrural areas with smaller per-capita homeless populations. The same logic applies to their interstate

dilution claim: the disproportionately urban states in which they live have received too few

representatives compared to less urban states.

Appellants may have established a vote dilution injury based on their contentions that their

disproportionately homeless urban areas were undercounted. Butsee FAIR, 486 F. Supp. at 570 (no

standing to challenge inclusion of illegal aliens in census because "[w]hile the plaintiffs estimate that

between one and sixteen congressional seats will be affected depending on the inclusion of illegal

aliens, they can do no more than speculate as to which states might gain and which might lose

representation"). Appellant voters' standing argument shares a flaw with those of appellant advocates

and federalfund recipients, however: they have not demonstrated causation. As we have explained,

we have not been shown that a better methodology was available, the selection of which would have

benefitted them. But even more fundamental, we cannot derive from appellants' submissions any view

as to whether an improved counting method would not only have increased the homeless count's

accuracy, but would have relieved the dilution of their votes.

Indeed, it is quite likely that a better count would have made absolutely no difference.

Assume, for example, the census counted 10,000 personsin a hypotheticalstate with 10 districts, one

of which is urban and one of which isrural. Further, assume the S-Night portion of the census missed

100 homeless personsin the urban district and 10 homeless personsin the rural district, and that these

districts and the eight others in our hypothetical state were drawn based on the belief that they

contained 1,000 persons.5 The urban voter's vote is worth 1/1,100 while the rural voter's is worth

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

6 Assuming an individual voter may assert it under the Constitution's provision that

"Representatives be apportioned among the several states "according to their respective

Numbers.' " Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442, 461 (1992) (quoting U.S.

CONST., art. I, § 2). 

1/1,010, and the urban voter's vote is diluted relative to the rural voter by the difference between the

two values (.0000810). A better methodology might have missed only 95 homeless persons in the

urban district and only one in the rural district. But it would not have benefitted the urban voter. In

fact, the urban voter's vote would have been more diluted relative to the rural voter's. The

enumerated population ofthe state after use ofthe better methodology is 10,014, and presumably the

districts would be redrawn on the basis of 1,001.4 person districts. If the district boundaries are

altered only minimally to capture this extra person or so per district (so that the uncounted homeless

persons remain in the same districts as our sample voters), the urban voter's vote is worth 1/1,096.4

and the rural voter's 1/1,002.4. The difference between the two values (.0000856) is largerand the

dilution relatively worseunder the more accurate count than it was under S-Night. The urban

voter's vote is dilutedand he isinjured in fact, see FAIR, 486 F. Supp. at 568under either count.

Since the urban voter is better off under S-Night than under the more accurate count, however, SNight is not the cause of the voter's dilution injury.

The record indicatesthat this hypotheticalis not far-fetched. The S-Night methodology might

have counted too few homeless persons in urban areas, but it counted no homeless persons in many

non-urban areas (appellants contend that as many as 34,000 jurisdictions were not enumerated).

Therefore, a homeless count that did a better job in San Francisco County as well asin Kern County,

California (where homeless might have been counted for the first time) could have resulted in more

accurate counts of both places, but no relative increase in the worth of a San Franciscan's vote.

Similarly, a more accurate count in New York as well asin Iowa might have resulted in larger

population counts in both, but no relative change in voting population. And, such interstate vote

dilution injury is difficult to establish.6 As the Supreme Court has recently noted, "the Constitution

makes it impossible to achieve population equality among interstate districts" since it "provides that

"[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 persons; each State shall

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

have at least one Representative; and district boundaries may not cross state lines.' " Wisconsin v.

City of New York, 116 S. Ct. 1091, 1100 (1996) (quoting Montana, 503 U.S. at 447-48). It is thus

no mean feat to discern the effect of a "better" homeless count on the vote of one state's residents

vis-a-vis the residents of other states. Appellants do not try. In light of the uncertainties as to SNight's effect compared with some other methodology, these "allegations are far too speculative to

permit us to conclude that any particular [appellant] has an interest at stake in this proceeding."

FAIR, 486 F. Supp. at 570-71. 

* * *

As no appellant has shown that the census has caused it injury that we can redress, we affirm

the district court's grant of summary judgment.

USCA Case #94-5312 Document #216675 Filed: 08/09/1996 Page 15 of 15