LogFAQs > #923851308

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

but please go to the front page of Scotusblog for a much more fair and not misleading article.

SCOTUSBlog is where I'm actually doing my own heavy lifting on this. I do think Slate is being hyperbolic in its article, but I also don't think you're right.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-commerce-v-new-york/

There are 3 Issues before the court. None of them ask the question of whether the equal protection clause was violated. True, this is because originally - before the new evidence came to light - that the district court had ruled in the governments favor.

I will fully admit I did not listen to oral arguments so if this question was argued anyway I'll admit I was totally wrong and apologize, but... why would it if it's not an issue before the court?

DOJ is arguing they need to start printing by the end of the month so they need SCOTUS to answer now (and that if they don't SCOTUS will just have to deal with them seeking emergency relief anyway.) Now whether this is true or not we can argue. However, the Fourth Circuit seems to believe they have until October in reality and therefore there should be time to conduct fact-finding and examine the new evidence. Indeed, in the limited remand request, the then-plantiffs cite the government's own witness stating such.

I get the devil's advocate argument is that they're stalling to run the clock, but it seems to be the evidence seems to be on the side of there existing enough time to look into this first and then rule since the district court and Fourth Circuit are taking this seriously. The likelier situation here in my view is DOJ wants to head that off because they fear the results such a fact-finding could unearth.

If it's not before the court it's not before the court.

Suppose SCOTUS rules in favor of the government tomorrow. The 4th Circuit case then goes to trial and evidence is shown that the census question is based on racial discrimination. Can the district court/4th circuit issue an injunction blocking the new question? Yes! They are not barred by precedent precisely because SCOTUS did not rule on that issue in the earlier case.

Now, it's possible that SCOTUS decides the case before it based on reasoning that makes the factual dispute in the other case irrelevant - suppose, for instance, they said it doesn't matter what the actual intent is, it only matters what a reasonable government might do - then the other case would be decided, but properly so. Because the evidence that has yet to be heard wouldn't make a difference even if that case had gone first.

The chances of the nightmare scenario the Slate article posits - where SCOTUS decides issues of fact in cases not before it without considering evidence - has approximately a 0% chance of happening.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!