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

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court ruled against including a citizenship question in the 2020 census in a decision handed down on June 27, 2019. The Court found that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross's decision to reinstate the citizenship question was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the rationale provided was "pretextual" ^[1]. The ruling determined that the Commerce Department's decision violated federal law ^{[2] [3]}.

The Court specifically found that Ross provided a false reason for adding the citizenship question, with the ACLU characterizing this as the administration lying to justify the addition ^[4]. The original justification claimed the data would be useful for enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as requested by the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions ^[5].

As a result of this ruling, the Trump Administration decided to carry out the 2020 census without the citizenship question ^[6], effectively blocking its inclusion from the census forms ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important context not captured in the original question:

• The citizenship question was not a new proposal but a reinstatement - the Commerce Department was attempting to restore a question that had been removed from previous census forms ^[1]
• The ruling had broader political implications beyond the immediate census - the decision was expected to have "significant impact on American politics over the coming decade" ^[6]
• The Court's ruling was narrow in scope - while the Supreme Court blocked the citizenship question, it "declined to rule on whether people without legal status can be excluded by the president from apportionment counts" ^[7], leaving other census-related constitutional questions unresolved
• The case involved multiple federal agencies - both the Department of Justice under Jeff Sessions and the Commerce Department under Wilbur Ross were key players in pushing for the question's inclusion ^{[5] [4]}

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

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

• The question doesn't indicate that this was a contentious political issue with significant stakes for congressional representation and federal funding distribution
• It omits the fact that the case involved allegations of deception by high-ranking government officials, specifically that Secretary Ross "lied" about the reasons for including the question ^[4]
• The framing doesn't convey that this was part of a broader Trump administration effort regarding immigration and census counting, which continued even after this ruling with attempts to exclude undocumented immigrants from apportionment counts ^[7]