Essenceroberts said in that normally, courts will defer to a decision by an administrative agency, as long as it is reasonable. There is a wide latitude we will give you, but in this case, it really seems like the decision to include a question about ofizenship, the explanation the department of commerce gave was a pretext. They said they wanted the data of citizenship to better enforce federal Voting Rights laws and that the department of justice had requested it, but when you look at the evidence in the case, it looks like the department of commerce started talking about including the question on the census pretty much immediately after the inauguration and effectively went out shopping for someone who would ask it for the data, so that they would have a reason to use the question. That is a complex opinion. Other justices also wrote, concurring in part. Amy some of the justices would have deferred altogether to the agencys decision, just as Stephen Breyer would have not deferred to
We had two Different Cases involves partisan gerrymandering, one out of maryland involving a challenge to a single matter and another out of north carolina, the District Courts in both cases ruled there was partisan gerrymandering, that the court today by 54 part of partisan gerrymandering is something courts should not get involved in. It is what they call a political question, something that should be left to congress and the political process. The chief justice said political gerrymandering is something that has been going on for a long time, congress is well aware of it, and the problem with political gerrymandering he said is that everybody has long known and in fact accepted that when you have state legislatures who are drawing maps, of course, theyll consider politics. The problem with political gerrymandering is how do you decide when a districting map has gone too far when you consider politics too much . We have never been able to come up with a workable standard to figure ou
Gerrymandering combined. What was the ruling on that one . We had two Different Cases involving partisan gerrymandering. One out of maryland. Another one out of north carolina. They ruled that partisan gerrymandering is something that courts should not get involved in. Its what they call a political question. Something that should be left to congress and the political proce process. The problem with political gerrymandering is that everybody has long known and accepted that when youve got state legislatures who are drawing maps, of course they will consider politics and the problem with political gerrymandering is how do you decide when a districting map has gone too far when youve considered politics too much. Weve never been able to come up with a workable standard to figure out when a map crosses a line from being a permissible use of politics to an unconstitutional use of politics. Were not going to try, in essence. Some states have set up in an effort to take the politics out of r
The congress for the president ial election. Jo all three looked at this and didnt think there was a judicial solution. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. Joining us now is amy howe, cofounder of scotus blog. Last day of the Supreme Court today. Two major decisions. Gerrymandering combined and the census Citizenship Question case. Chief Justice Roberts also had the majority opinion in the two gerrymandering cases combined. What was the ruling on that one . That case, we had two Different Cases involving partisan gerrymandering. One out of maryland involving a challenge to a single l federal congressional map. Another one out of North Carolina involving North Carolinas entire federal congressional map. The District Courts in both of those cases had ruled that there was partisan gerrymandering, that the court today by a vote of 54 ruled that partisan gerrymandering is actually something that courts dont have the power, should not get involved in. The legal term is just its what t
Justice sotomayor general, are you general francisco to knock that off. Justice sotomayor are you suggesting that hispanics are boycotting the census, that, are you suggesting they dont have, whether it is rational or not, that they dont have a legitimate fear . General francisco not in the slightest, your honor. I am suggesting that the risk, of my friends theory on the other side is that it countenance as precisely that type of coordinated behavior subject to final review that would empower groups to knock off any question of the census that they found to be particularly objectionable. Mr. Chief justice, unless the court has further questions . Chief Justice Roberts were all done. General francisco thank you, your honor. Chief Justice Roberts thank you, general. The case is submitted. Some of the justices would have deferred altogether to the agency decision. Haveen breyer would not deferred to the agency at all. They are sort of all over the map. But five justices were able to come