Federal Judge PERMANENTLY blocks Trump from adding citizenship question to Census

A federal judge has now permanently blocked the Trump administration from adding the citizenship question to the 2020 census:

CNN – A New York federal judge has issued an order definitively blocking the Trump administration from adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census in any form, despite the administration’s insistence it has abandoned plans to add a question on the census.

Judge Jesse Furman, in his two-page order, also indicated the seriousness with which the court will continue to monitor this controversial issue, saying,”The Court will retain jurisdiction in this case to enforce the terms of this Order until the 2020 census results are processed and sent to the President by December 31, 2020.”



Not only is Furman blocking it, but says his court will monitor the issue until the completion of the census next year. What a joke.

It’s beyond the pale to see a federal court block the constitutional authority of the Executive Branch in adding one of the most basic questions to the census. And we have John Roberts to thank for this.

In case you’re wondering, Furman is an Obama appointee.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

96 thoughts on “Federal Judge PERMANENTLY blocks Trump from adding citizenship question to Census

  1. I really hope that President Trump picks an issue, and sets up a scenario where he ignores one of these activist judges. I thought immigration was a perfect test because the constitution rests that power in the Executive branch. These injunctions must be challenged

    1. I hear that. You know damn well that Erdogan, Putin, Maduro, and Kim Jong wouldn’t put up with this shit.

      1. Not the judicial branch either and we have activist judges who are making laws from the bench instead of interpreting laws. I know you are a lawyer isn’t that what they are supposed to do? To interpret the law.

        1. They’re not making law. They’re exercising the power to review executive action, which was granted specifically to them by the legislature based on a grant in the constitution. This involves an interpretation and application of said law by which they are granted power. I went into this in painstaking detail below.

          While some lawyers and legal scholars may disagree with the result, few if any would disagree with the idea that the court had the power to rule the way it did.

  2. That’s nice,the Judge just stated he will monitor this issue until he has defeated the President in the next election.

  3. After reading what @slantry:disqus wrote below, I have to ask:

    Does this president REALLY want to ask about citizenship or is this just a “red meat” issue?

    If there was a procedure he should have followed, then why the heck didn’t his people do that? Look, this invasion of our nation frustrates me to no end and I share many people’s anger about this. It seems no matter what’s done to try to curb or halt this, it gets blocked by forces that are bent on destroying this nation.

    A part of me wishes he would just defy the court, tell them to pound sand and do what’s necessary. But that other part says, “Then what’s to stop a member of The Sinister who becomes president from doing the same thing?”

    1. That is the reason why we should insist that the rules be followed.

      Of course, whether the administration actually failed to follow the procedures is a topic that continues to be debated (as I noted, at least 3 justices were prepared to say that they did follow said rules), but I’m not in the camp of people who thinks that the majority decision was so far afield of standard administrative law. And, as John Yoo has pointed out, this decision is very well positioned to become another cornerstone in the rollback of the administrative state, which is not exactly a liberal goal…

  4. So one president can take it off with no action from the courts but another president can’t put it back on? Makes total sense……

      1. Obama didn’t actually take it off the census. What he did was eliminate the long form census that had the question on there.
        The simplest solution would be to reinstate the long form census as it was and the question will be back on there.

    1. Perhaps someone should have filed suit asking the courts to look at Zero’s basis for taking it off.

      Oh well, hindsight’s 20/20 I guess.

  5. As usual Trump sits there and takes it. he needs to fight back against the tyranny of the judiciary. Of course maybe Trump does not care about the citizenship question. It is all a big play for his constituents like Sunday’s ICE raid, the wall, birthweight citizenship, stopping illegal immigration.

    1. Trump is a pathological lying con artist. Ted NAILED the heck out of him when he said that.

      1. Trump has governed for the most part conservatively and Cruz to his credit has put aside personal issues and has supported Trump in many cases because Trump has governed conservatively.

  6. For heavens sake, just do like Obama did when courts ruled against him, he just went on and did it anyway. I’m sick of this BS.

    1. Yeah, no. Obama just did it anyway when congress wouldn’t authorize him, but he did get smacked down by the courts for doing so. This is an entirely different matter. The courts keep arbitrarily ruling against Trump because Orangeman bad, not because of constitutional or congressional matters.

      1. Then they are out of control. They are only 1 branch of government and they are not the final word, especially on things that are relegated to the Executive Branch. If Obama could remove with a stroke of a pen, then Trump can put back with a stroke of his pen. And by the way, I live in a State where they filed lawsuit after lawsuit against Obama so that when it did come to the courts the damage had already been done and it became accepted law. At this rate, judges will decide things with no constitutional or congressional input. We are done if we don’t get control of these unelected officials.

    2. I can’t get behind this mentality folks have of, “Well Obama did it, so that makes it OK if we do it.”

      1. Yes. You refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.
        Obama got away with it because the media keeps burying the facts
        and cutting to Entertainment ‘news’.

        They didn’t report on the border invasion either, claiming the caravans didn’t exist, and it was a phony crisis.

        https://drjamesdobson.org/about/july-newsletter-2019
        Oh, but you think Obama is your “scandal free”…’messiah’.
        And Trump finally comes along to wrestle control from your
        NWO Globalistista, and donates his pay to end the Chaos
        your handlers built.

        1. I don’t refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election. Trump won. Dumbest thing we’ve done since electing Obama, but there it is. I’ve said for awhile now that I’ve lost all faith in the intelligence of the dumpster fire electorate.

          But that has nothing to do with the point that, just because Obama got away with doing things that Donald should too. We’re supposed to be better than that. Instead, fools like you are encouraging that we become just like Obama. (Which, btw, is why you threw your vote behind a progressive candidate like Trump, right?)

          What’s that about?

  7. One black robed tyrant, appointed by the messiah, has proclaimed himself king and shall rule over we peons. The tree of liberty is dying of thirst.

  8. Hey, why not just suspend the PRESIDENCY! You know you want to, you Freaking HACKS!

  9. So, when you get your 2020 census form to fill out, write in your citizenship status, maybe in red ink. Pass the word.

    1. It will be interesting 72 years from now when genealogists and historians view the 2020 forms and see many scrawled with “I AM A US CITIZEN” in red ink.

    2. I think some of the questions on the census are none of the government’s business. To those questions I add my own check box that says, NOYFB and I check the box.

      1. I plan on writing “No comprende” on mine.

        Also, what do we do with all those censuses from the transgenders? They’re going to be inaccurate as well.

  10. I am tired that a single federal judge, anywhere in the country, can just jump up and overrule the Executive Branch. The federal courts are out of control.

  11. This is why I did not want them to ever stop the legal process. I knew something like this would happen. The danger is that they will find a way to make this a PERMANENT DEAL of not allowing the census question EVER. I wish someone would tell the administration this and have them rethink and go back to court even though they will not have time to put it on this current form. This is too dangerous to leave as an open ended case.

    1. The decision already said they can answer it. To say they never can ever again would fly in the face of the majority opinion.

      All three branches have stamped their approval on the legitimacy of the question itself.

      1. That was my understanding as well so how can this judge enter this ruling or am I missing something about the original SC ruling.

        1. My understanding is that the enforcement order is based on the contrived reasons they objected to in the first place. So long as their effort to add a citizenship question is predicated on that, and failing to follow the administrative procedure – the order is enforceable.

          If Donald/Wilbur start the administrative process again from scratch, and do it right this time, they’ll be fine. This is what bothered me about Trump’s “solution” of gathering the data from the various federal agencies. It’s not necessary (and it won’t help regarding apportionment). All the dude needs to do is follow the rules.

          But it’s like the guy is hellbent on bucking the system and doing things improperly to reach maximum ineffectiveness. (One might even hazard that he’s doing so intentionally.)

  12. Furman is the same a-hole who has been granting unusual discovery capibility, among other things, to plaintiffs since at least last year. He is a federal district judge. I really fail to see how he has any jurisdiction over the Commerce department.

    Too bad Trump didn’t have the guts to add it to the ballot anyway. Then if liberal states refused to obey the law, he could have turned it back on them saying, “You don’t mind if AL doesn’t enforce Roe V. Wade, do you?”

    Alas, the perils of having a populist who is scared of the judiciary.

    1. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but i think federal judges can be impeached and maybe congress should start taking a serious look at that. Of course right now no democrats would even want to impeach some of their favorite judges and it would take a republican majority to do it.

  13. Trump should say; “go fly a kite, I am the President” and the hell with that overreaching Judge.

        1. If we are to follow Ivan’s idea, then we’re not talking about a President. We’re talking about a king.

  14. Would be a good time to impeach this judge, problem is, it’s New York state and the state legislature is run by dems. Will never happen.

    1. He’s a federal judge. The New York State legislature would have nothing to do with his impeachment.

  15. Kangaroo Court Jesters like this sorry embarassement will be the demise of the civil society as we know it. Where are the Spineless Republicans and why don’t they stand by and protect the President. ? Disgusting .

  16. Fall of our constitutional republic. Democrats and leftist totally ignore all rules of law.

    It’s about time we do the same.

    It’s all out war

  17. And no one challenges this? What about said judge led to a federal pen in handcuffs? What arrogance and yet he can because NOTHING IS DONE. And the screaming rabid left knows it. Imagine a Groundhog Day when no matter what you do there is no penalty. No cuffs no jail and prison. That is what the insane left is counting on. These tyrants in black robes do whatever they want and then repercussions = zero. None and that’s why they believe they can get away with it because they do. And what am I a citizen to do? Nothing as I am powerless over judge overlords. I can rant all I want and that = nothing. Nothing at all. Truly the overlords of this country are my real enemies.

  18. These Leftist activist judges better hope Trump is not reelected.
    Because they will not be promoted or reasigned to better courts as long as a Republican is in the White House.
    Career suicide, I hope it was worth it.

  19. If CJ Roberts didn’t hate President Trump so much he would have the SCOTUS fast track the appeals process with cases where the judges are blatantly ignoring the US Constitution.

  20. Well past time Trump exerts his constitutional authority–and duty per Art II Sec 1 Cl 8–to ignore such usurpatious, imperial rulings. Our founders are weary of rolling over in their graves. Give them a well-deserved rest, Mr. Trump, and do your duty!

  21. These left-wing federal judges are a joke. Can’t you have another federal judge overturn this one?

  22. I wouldn’t think SCOTUS would be too happy about this, since their only basis for rejecting the addition of the citizenship question in the first place was that they didn’t think the reason given was sincere, and basically sent it back to the Commerce Department to fix.

    But instead of the judge telling the Commerce Department to start over or remediate the issue, he permanently blocks the question in contradiction of the instructions from SCOTUS?

    This leaves Roberts in an embarrassing position. If SCOTUS takes the appeal from his decision, then he has a hard time slapping the judge down for going beyond his authority, since nothing has changed (yet). But he would have a hard time letting the judge just ignore his instruction that the issue could be fixed.

    Note that the conservative justices don’t have this issue, because they stuck to the Constitutional grounds of a) does the Secretary of Commerce have the authority to add this question, and b) is the reason given sufficient — not sincere, as some suppose the judges are supposed to decide, but sufficient according to statute.

    For Roberts to avoid that sticky issue, he might try just ignoring the decision and rejecting the appeal, or he might try another split-the-baby ruling that the four conservative justices join, but that they say should not be read as setting precedent.

    (This is, of course, assuming the DOJ appeals. We seem to be edging up to one of those issues where the president might just ignore an out-of-bounds ruling from a hostile judge.)

    1. You’re wrong in a couple ways:

      1) Roberts/SCOTUS didn’t remand this to the agency on that basis, this judge did; SCOTUS affirmed that order. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the role of trial courts (which issue orders to litigants) vs appellate courts (which review those orders and, if necessary, issue orders to lower courts). In other words, SCOTUS didn’t give the judge any order that he ignored; you’re attributing to SCOTUS an order that this judge made in the first place. SCOTUS did reverse a few decisions he made on other statutory bases, and that reversal order was followed.

      2) If you recall, President issued an executive order in which he stated that the Supreme Court had foreclosed the citizenship question, and he and the DoJ publicly gave up on the prospect of re-adding it.

      3) In light of (2), the parties in this case (ie plaintiffs and the DoC, represented by the DoJ) stipulated to the entry of this injunction. Which is to say, the government asked the court to enter this exact order.

      4) This is not unusual and became the expected resolution of this case once the government announced it had given up. The new rationale that it had leave to create was never before the court and, in light of the government’s decision not to pursue any such rationale or the litigation that would have ensued, a final order (just like this one) was warranted and expected.

      1. I didn’t really see the need to spell it out, but to be specific, the decision was sent back to the court to make a further ruling consistent with the SCOTUS decision once the agency remediated. Which takes a lot longer to say than the bottom line, which was that the agency was to be given the chance to remediate the issue.

        This judge then issued a permanent injunction.And here we are.

        Whether or not the president was wise to take the workaround rather than keep fighting the ruling, the fact remains that the deadline for the census to begin printing had already passed.

        I suppose the judge thinks somehow the deadline was fake, since he seems to have issued an injunction against something not actually possible. Regardless of this rather pointless injunction, it’s too late for the citizenship question to be added to the census now.

        1. Thanks for “spelling it out.” You’re still wrong.

          The case was sent back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, as is true of literally every other case that SCOTUS decides, because that is procedurally what happens after every SCOTUS decision (except, obviously, the cases on its original jurisdiction docket). In this case, that would be the affirmation of the remand to the agency (no action needed) and vacating of certain statutory judgments that SCOTUS reversed. And then any further proceedings that were necessary.

          The entry of the permanent injunction was also a “further proceeding” consistent with that opinion, seeing as the Supreme Court did not issue an opinion based on a hypothetical new rationale not before it, which would be classically unconstitutional. SCOTUS certainly wasn’t telling the court how the case had to be resolved on remand (to Furman, not to the agency), seeing as further proceedings were necessary. And, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, in no way was SCOTUS telling Furman how to resolve it after “remediation,” as you put it. SCOTUS was agreeing with Furman’s decision to give the agency an opportunity to remediate (and the operative reasoning behind that decision). After sending mixed signals, the government conceded that it wasn’t going to try again, and this injunction followed.

          Your claim that the judge must have thought the deadline was fake ignores the fact that a week or two earlier, the DoJ had expressly told the court that it was considering its options to put the question on the census, which is why the whole thing wasn’t simply dismissed as moot.

          And, again, the injunction was entered on consent.

          Do you ever admit you’re wrong or do you just keep shifting your position?

  23. I want to make something very clear. The Trump Administration as per usual didn’t do a good job of explaining to the American People that this question has been on every census prior to the Obama Administration. That Obama and his leftwing nut job Administration along with the Democrat party removed the question because they want open borders. What is also note worthy is house and Senate Republicans didn’t fight the Obama Administration when they pulled question as far as I know. If they did I certainly don’t remember them doing so.

  24. Why wasn’t this question QUIETLY added to the census? This seems like one of those things that could have been done and over with already if the Administration wouldn’t have tried to use it as a fundraiser. Seriously, who the heck would have even known if someone would have added this on the day they started printing? I have yet to hear an explanation from the court as to why it was Obama’s prerogative to remove the question but Trump cannot add? Kind of like Obama’s Executive Order on DACA but Trump can’t end it by Executive Order? Or why SCOTUS thought it would be judicial overreach to get involved in the gerrymandering case because they claimed a lack of Constitutional authority to involve themselves in the Executive Branch yet they had no problem on that same day getting involved with the census question. That’s just bat sh!t crazy!!!

    1. Trump could accomplish a lot by doing things quietly. He could do the ICE raids quietly so no one will know to evade them.

    2. It “could” have been added had the Trump Admin given a different explanation than what was presented. DACA, again could have been ended had it been presented properly. He does not have the proper people handling these things & fails to understand that.

      1. He tried that but the judge rejected the new lawyers he assigned to do it. I think these judges would have found excuse after excuse to make sure he cannot remedy what Roberts wanted remedied.

        1. Which validates my point. HIs lawyers/staff should have know lawyers could not be swapped. IF it had been done “properly” in the first place, it probably would have been approved. Remember, his “best people” have done this before (3 times on banning people from the ME) & then it was accepted by the court.

        2. The judge rejected them because they screwed up the substitution of counsel.

          Seeing a pattern here?

      2. Either the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch are co-equal branches of government or not. Obviously the citizenship question is legal, proper, and Constitutional being that it was on the census for 175 years before Obama. If its legal and Constitutional the Judiciary is out of bounds to demand a “proper explanation” for a perfectly legal act. Same for DACA. It’s like a sheriff pulling you over for going 35mph in a 35mph zone and giving you a citation because he didn’t like where you were going. It’s treasonous and unconstitutional

  25. Trump should tell that judge where he can stuff his order. I’m getting really sick of these asses in black robes who think they can tell the President what he can and can’t do. Why Trump doesn’t just appeal these decisions and stay the course I can’t understand.

      1. Because as Scoop pointed out, this entire topic falls under the authority of the executive branch.

        But now it seems any random judge in America can effectively veto any Trump policy, and people act like that’s just the way it’s supposed to work.

  26. This is what President Trump should say:

    “Judge Furman has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

    Exactly what can he do, order Trump’s arrest?

    The sooner the president restarts the country under the road President Jackson started almost 200 years ago, the sooner we’ll have some of these ridiculous orders null and void and the country restored in the process.

  27. The citizenship question was a part of the national census for decades until the Obama administration quietly had the question removed. Now, it’s “illegal”. History of place of birth, citizenship, year of entry questions
    Citizenship originated with the 1820 Census, place of birth originated with the 1850 Census, and year of entry originated with the 1890 Census. (per census.gov)

  28. They insist on pushing and pushing and pushing! How long are we going to keep accepting this crap?

  29. We are lost as a country. I feel a sadness in my heart that in my grand children’s lifetime they most surely will see an eventual armed revolution in this country as the left continues its tyrannical actions.

    1. Why wait for your grandchildren’s time. Let’s get it done.

      I am tired of people who say violence is not the answer. It is the only damn answer they will pay attention to. There are many who believe the same as I do and they are ready.

  30. We can thank the spinless RINO, President Bumbler Bush 43 for his great choice! From ObamaCare to a valid US citizenship question on the Census. Bush could have nominated another Ruth Bader Ginsburg… smh

        1. It’s not Roberts’ fault the citizenship question isn’t on the census. It’s the Trump Administration’s.

            1. Yes, but it’s the Trump Administration’s fault that it’s still off the Census.

              They could have fixed it. But they failed to. Because they’re incompetent.

  31. Umm when did we elect these judges to make these decisions?!!? Was a law broken?!?! NO!!! Was there something unconstitutional?!?! NO!!! Then they have no business sticking their nose in the people’s business

    1. When we decided on the heels of fighting a war with a tyrant across the ocean that we didn’t want a government that would act by fiat and/or with impunity for pretextual reasons that it can’t/won’t explain.

Comments are closed.