Fact check: How did the Supreme Court's decision affect the 2020 census citizenship question?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court's decision in Department of Commerce v. New York ^[1] effectively blocked the citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 census ^[2]. The Court ruled that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross provided a false reason for adding the citizenship question, finding his justification to be "pretextual" and in violation of federal law ^{[3] [2]}.

The Court determined that the Commerce Department's decision was arbitrary and capricious and did not comply with the Administrative Procedure Act ^{[4] [2]}. Rather than completely rejecting the possibility of including such a question, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Department of Commerce, requiring them to provide proper justification ^[5]. However, with time running out to finalize the census questionnaire, the Trump administration ultimately decided not to pursue the citizenship question for the 2020 census ^[6].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements not addressed in the original question:

• Political implications: The citizenship question would have likely reduced the political power of larger states by potentially causing undercounts in areas with significant immigrant populations ^[6]
• Ongoing policy discussions: Despite the 2020 decision, President Trump has called for a new census that excludes people without legal status, which would represent an unprecedented change to how the country conducts population tallies ^[7]
• Legal precedent: The decision established important precedent regarding administrative agencies providing truthful justifications for policy changes, as the Court specifically found that Ross had lied about his reasoning ^[3]
• Impact on representation: The ACLU characterized the decision as removing "a major barrier to allowing a full count of all people residing in the United States" ^[3], highlighting how the citizenship question could have affected constitutional representation and federal funding distribution

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual, simply asking about the Supreme Court's decision without making claims that could be misleading. However, the question's framing could benefit from additional specificity:

• The question doesn't specify that this was a 2019 Supreme Court decision affecting the 2020 census, which might lead to confusion about timing
• It doesn't acknowledge that the decision was not a complete prohibition but rather a requirement for proper justification that the administration chose not to pursue due to time constraints
• The question doesn't reference the broader context of ongoing debates about census methodology and immigrant counting that continue beyond the 2020 census cycle ^{[7] [8]}