The Supreme Court has blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census for the time being in a major setback for the Trump administration.
The bitter controversy centers around whether the administration can ask all recipients a citizenship question on the 2020 census for the first time since 1950.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that there was sufficient reason for concern about why the Commerce Department wanted to add the question. Roberts had the support of the four liberal justices.
"If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case," he wrote.
The decision raises the question of whether the administration will have enough time or the ability to add the citizenship question before the census begins. The administration previously told the court that the questionnaire needed to be printed by the end of June.
The data obtained from the 2020 census is used for the allocation of congressional seats and the distribution of billions of federal dollars to states and localities over the next decade.
The Trump administration claimed the citizenship question on the census questionnaire is necessary to better comply with federal voting rights law. Critics argued it is an attempt to intimidate noncitizens and Hispanic households and will lead to a decline in response rates and underrepresentation of minorities.
President Donald Trump has said the census would be "meaningless" without the citizenship question.
Trump tweeted in April, "Can you believe that the Radical Left Democrats want to do our new and very important Census Report without the all important Citizenship Question. Report would be meaningless and a waste of the $Billions (ridiculous) that it costs to put together!"
The administration has also asserted executive privilege over materials related to the citizenship question, spurring a fight with House Democrats.
Roberts said the explanation for adding the question didn't pass muster.
"The sole stated reason -- seems to have been contrived. We are presented, in other words, with an explanation for agency action that is incongruent with what the record reveals about the agency's priorities and decisionmaking process."
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who challenged the administration, said in a statement Thursday that "This one question could have caused a substantial undercount, particularly of noncitizens and Latinos."
"Thanks to the Court, the census will remain a tool for delivering on our government's promise of fairness and equity," James said.
New evidence presented
Every lower court asked to consider the issue has blocked the administration from adding the question, ruling that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross exceeded his authority under federal law or the Constitution by doing so.
After arguments before the high court, opponents of the question informed the court they had obtained "new evidence" that the decision was politically motivated. They say the intention was to intimidate minority households from responding in order to reduce Democratic Party representation.
A federal trial judge earlier this month said he believes new evidence presented "raises a substantial issue."
Late last month, the ACLU obtained a hard drive with about 75,000 documents, including a 2015 study from a Republican redistricting expert, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, who they say played a significant role in the decision to add the question.
Hofeller, who has since died, wrote that using "citizen voting age" population as the redistricting population base would be "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites."
Opponents of the citizen question allege Hofeller ghostwrote part of a Justice Department draft letter requesting the Commerce Department, which oversees the census, add the question. They say that the evidence reveals that Ross adviser A. Mark Neuman and senior Justice official John Gore "falsely testified" about the genesis of the request to add the question.
DOJ claimed in a letter to Furman that Hofeller's work did not play "any role whatsoever" in the department's request to add the question.