Department of Commerce v. New York

Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Administrative Law

588 U.S. 752 (2019)

Updated August 1, 2026

Administrative LawpretextcensusAdministrative Procedure Actcitizenship questionreasoned decisionmakingstandingEnumeration Clause

Facts

The Constitution requires a decennial census, and Congress delegated to the Secretary of Commerce authority to conduct it in such form and content as he determines. In March 2018, the Secretary announced that he would reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census, stating that the Department of Justice had requested block-level citizenship data to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. The administrative record later showed that the Secretary had begun exploring reinstatement shortly after taking office, had tried to obtain requests from other agencies, and ultimately persuaded DOJ to make the request. The Census Bureau had analyzed alternatives, including using administrative records alone, but the Secretary chose to both ask the citizenship question and supplement with administrative records.

Issue

Whether respondents had standing to challenge the citizenship question, whether the Enumeration Clause or Census Act barred the Secretary from adding it, whether the Secretary's decision was reviewable under the APA, and whether the decision had to be set aside because it was arbitrary, contrary to the Census Act, or based on a pretextual rationale.

Rule

Agency action is presumptively reviewable under the APA unless the relevant statute precludes review or commits the action to agency discretion by law in the rare circumstance where there is no meaningful standard to apply. Under arbitrary-and-capricious review, a court asks whether the agency examined the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation with a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made. An agency ordinarily is judged on its contemporaneous explanation and administrative record, but courts may look beyond the record on a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior, and agencies must provide genuine justifications rather than contrived reasons.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Secretary of Housing directs a nationwide housing survey to add a question about immigration status. California and New Mexico sue, introducing trial evidence that mixed-status households are likely to respond at lower rates, which would reduce each state's population-based federal housing grants by at least a small but measurable amount. The government argues any injury depends on third parties unlawfully refusing to answer a survey they are legally required to complete.

Which is the strongest argument that at least one state has standing?

Explanation. Standing exists where a plaintiff shows a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury that is fairly traceable and likely redressable. A likely loss of population-based funds qualifies, and traceability can be satisfied when third parties are likely to react in predictable ways to the challenged government action, even if their noncompliance would be unlawful. The Court rejected the idea that such causation is too speculative when supported by trial findings.