Nessel, coalition defend census at Supreme Court

A coalition of states, cities and counties argued before the U.S. Supreme Court Monday against President Donald Trump’s attempts to leave millions of undocumented immigrants out of the apportionment base that establishes the number of members in the House of Representatives that each state receives.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and the coalition argued that the administration must count the “whole number of persons” residing in the country for apportionment, as the U.S. Constitution and the Census Act unambiguously require.

“Federal law is very clear when it comes to the census and who must be counted,” Nessel said. “This policy violates a longstanding constitutional and statutory requirement and clearly disregards the rules outlined in the U.S. Constitution and the Census Act.”

In July, a coalition of states, cities and counties filed a lawsuit against President Trump, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, and others after they announced that they would leave millions of undocumented immigrants out of the apportionment base that follows the census count.

The lawsuit sought to stop the Trump administration from violating the longstanding constitutional and statutory requirement to count the “whole number of persons” residing in each state for apportionment, without regard to immigration status.

In August, the coalition filed a motion for summary judgment in the case, which was granted in September by a three-judge court that stated that the president’s plan to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base was unlawful.

On Monday, the coalition specifically argued that the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base violates Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Census Act.