National Urban League v. Ross
- Lucy Koh
- 5:20-cv-05799
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 15
In National Urban League v. Ross, Judge Koh clarified the census injunction, ordered compliance measures, and denied plaintiffs’ motions to compel and for a temporary restraining order as moot.
The defendants, including the Commerce Secretary, the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham, and the Census Bureau, were ordered to communicate and document compliance with the injunction. Census Bureau employees were to receive the required notice, and census data-collection operations were to continue through October 31, 2020.
What happened
National Urban League v. Ross concerned the Census Bureau’s plans to speed up 2020 Census data collection and reporting. The court had previously paused the accelerated deadlines after finding that the plan violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants continued acting as if the accelerated deadlines remained in effect.
The court clarified that the earlier order restored the Census Bureau’s prior deadlines: October 31, 2020, for completing data collection, and April 30, 2021, for reporting the total population to the President. It ordered the defendants to notify all Census Bureau employees that the October 5 target date was not operative and to have Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham file a sworn statement confirming compliance. The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and their second request for a temporary restraining order as moot.
Judge Koh said the defendants could face sanctions or contempt proceedings if they violated the injunction again. The order also set another case-management conference and vacated the scheduled hearing on the motion to compel.
The detailed version
- National Urban League v. Ross · No. 5:20-cv-05799
- Lucy Koh
- Oct. 1, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs sued Commerce Secretary Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham, and the Census Bureau, alleging violations of the Constitution’s requirement to conduct a census and the Administrative Procedure Act. The dispute involved the Census Bureau’s August 3, 2020 “Replan,” which accelerated deadlines for census data collection, data processing, and reporting.
In an earlier order, the court found that the defendants had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in five independent ways when adopting the Replan. The court issued a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705 and a preliminary injunction, a court order requiring or prohibiting conduct while a case continues. That order barred the defendants from implementing the Replan’s September 30, 2020 data-collection deadline and December 31, 2020 deadline for reporting the total population to the President.
Court’s clarification
The court explained that stopping the Replan deadlines restored the deadlines in the previously operative COVID-19 Plan: October 31, 2020, for completing data collection and April 30, 2021, for reporting the total population to the President. The court stated that these deadlines remained in force until the defendants cured the legal defects identified in the earlier injunction order.
The court found that the defendants had repeatedly violated the injunction order by continuing to implement the September 30 deadline and by announcing and communicating an October 5 “target date” for ending field operations. The opinion cited Census Bureau website statements, employee communications, text messages, and the Bureau’s public statements. It also discussed documents showing that the October 5 date was selected to meet the December 31 reporting deadline that the court had stayed and enjoined the defendants from implementing.
Relief ordered
To enforce and preserve the status quo, the court ordered the defendants to send a new text message on October 2, 2020, to all Census Bureau employees. The message had to notify employees of the injunction order, state that the October 5 target date was not operative, and state that data collection would continue through October 31, 2020. After sending the message, the defendants had to file a copy with the court.
The court also ordered Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham to file, by October 5 at 2 p.m. Pacific Time, a declaration under penalty of perjury confirming the defendants’ continuing compliance with the injunction order and describing steps taken to prevent future violations.
Disposition
The court clarified the scope of the injunction order and issued the compliance directives described above. It denied as moot the plaintiffs’ motion to compel and their second motion for a temporary restraining order. The court stated that it would subject the defendants to sanctions or contempt proceedings if they violated the injunction order again. It set a case-management conference for October 6 and vacated the October 2 hearing on the motion to compel.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.