Trump's Census citizenship question is officially bust

Protestors gather outside the Supreme Court to urge against adding a citizenship question to the United States census.
(Image credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Trump administration's plans for a census citizenship question are no longer.

The 2020 census questionnaire is officially on the printing presses, and there's no question of citizenship on its pages, an attorney for the Department of Justice told lawyers fighting the question on Tuesday. The official reveal comes after successive courts flip-flopped over whether the question was constitutional, and after the Supreme Court ruled against its inclusion last week.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the question's inclusion early last year, launching a bevvy of court challenges to it. But even though the Supreme Court ruled the Trump administration's explanation for adding the question was insufficient, President Trump suggested he'd try to delay the census to leave room for further review. Now, an email from the DOJ confirms that won't happen.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up
See more

Advocates claimed asking about citizenship would deter noncitizens from taking the census, depressing responses in traditionally Democratic areas and therefore reducing those regions' congressional representation. Evidence later surfaced showing a deceased GOP operative had found that including the question "would be advantageous to Republicans and non-Hispanic whites," and that he had shown his research to Trump officials. Still, the Trump administration argued it would help them enforce the Voting Rights Act — reasoning the Supreme Court said "appeared to be contrived" in its Thursday ruling.

To continue reading this article...
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Not sure which email you used for your subscription? Contact us
Kathryn Krawczyk

Kathryn is a graduate of Syracuse University, with degrees in magazine journalism and information technology, along with hours to earn another degree after working at SU's independent paper The Daily Orange. She's currently recovering from a horse addiction while living in New York City, and likes to share her extremely dry sense of humor on Twitter.