Fact check: What was the Supreme Court's ruling on the 2020 census citizenship question?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census in the case Department of Commerce v. New York decided on June 27, 2019. The Court found that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross's decision to reinstate the citizenship question was "arbitrary and capricious" because the rationale provided was pretextual ^[1].

The Court determined that Ross provided a false reason for adding the question, with the ACLU noting that the decision "prevents the addition of the question based on the administration's lies" ^[2]. The justification offered - that the question was needed to better enforce the Voting Rights Act at the Department of Justice's request - was ruled to be a pretext that could not adequately explain the decision ^[3].

As a result, the Supreme Court blocked the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 census forms ^{[4] [5]}. The Court upheld in part the lower federal court's ruling barring the question and remanded the case back to the Department of Commerce for further proceedings ^{[4] [1]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important context about the broader census controversy that extends beyond just the citizenship question ruling:

• The Supreme Court declined to rule on a separate but related issue - whether people without legal immigration status can be excluded by the president from apportionment counts used for congressional representation ^[6]. This suggests the citizenship question was part of a larger strategy regarding undocumented immigrants and political representation.
• The Trump administration's motivations appear to have been more complex than publicly stated. The Court's finding that the Voting Rights Act justification was pretextual suggests there were undisclosed political or policy reasons for wanting the citizenship question included.
• The ruling represented a significant setback for the Trump administration, which had been pushing hard to include the question despite legal challenges ^[5]. This indicates there were substantial political stakes involved in the outcome.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, simply asking about the Supreme Court's ruling. However, it lacks important context that could lead to incomplete understanding:

• The question doesn't mention that the Court found the administration lied about its reasons for adding the citizenship question, which was a central finding in the case ^[2].
• It omits the broader political context - that this was part of the Trump administration's immigration-related policies and had significant implications for congressional apportionment and federal funding distribution.
• The framing doesn't indicate the controversial nature of the decision or that it involved allegations of pretextual reasoning by a Cabinet secretary, which were serious charges that the Court ultimately validated.

The question, while factually neutral, could benefit from acknowledging that this was a highly contentious political and legal battle with implications extending far beyond a simple administrative decision about census questions.