A federal judge in Maryland on Wednesday decided that new evidence in case of a census issue deserves further consideration, opening the door to the plaintiffs' lawyers to request a court of appeal to return the case to him.
Civil rights groups that had sued the government over its addition of a citizenship issue to the 2020 census had asked US courts judge George J. Hazel to take his decision on whether the government was guilty of conspiracy and intent to discriminate against new evidence in case occurred last month. Files discovered on hard disks by a deceased Republican redistricting strategist suggested that he had informed Trump the administration on how to get the citizenship issue on the investigation and that the strategist had stated that the addition of the question would create an election advantage for Republicans and non-Spanish speakers. white.
Hazel had settled in April against the issue and joined two other federal judges by stating that the government had violated the law of administration when it added the last year. But in this decision he did not find enough evidence to support the applicants' claims that the government intended to discriminate against immigrants, Latin American and Asian Americans by adding the question or adding it was part of a conspiracy within the Trump administration for violating constitutional rights of non-citizens and people of color.
Supreme Court is expected to issue before the end of this month whether the three lower courts ruling. But the plaintiffs in Maryland had also argued that the administration intended to cause minority minorities in violation of the 5th amendment amendment, and that it intervened to deprive healthy minorities of their constitutional rights. If Hazel or appellate court decide that this was the case, their judgment bringing the issue into the areas that the Supreme Court does not currently considering.
At a hearing in Greenbelt, Md. On Tuesday, the plaintiffs' lawyers argued that the new evidence was enough to prove a clear link between the strategist Thomas Hofeller and Trump administration officials who were pressing for the issue to be added. Ministry of Justice at the hearing sought to discredit the new evidence that questioned its authenticity.
The case is technically closed to Hazel & # 39; s court. It now resides in the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which can either return the case to Hazel or decide to rule regardless of his recommendation.
Hazel could have reversed its previous decision; his decisive Wednesday does not indicate definitively how he would manage if the case is returned to him. But plaintiffs' attorneys welcomed it as a victory.
"This is a significant step from the court of law that gives credibility to what we all know is that the government interacted to discriminate latino and immigrant colorants, as it added a citizenship issue to the 2020 census," says Andrea Senteno regional adviser to the Mexican legal defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), a plaintiff in the case.
Requests for comments from the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Commerce was not immediately returned.
The Supreme Court had speeded up the issue to allow census forms to be sent to the printer in July, and is expected to announce a decision by the end of the next week. In April's argument, the Conservative majority seemed to expose the Minister of Commerce Wilbur Ross to adding questions to the census form, including that of citizenship.
But after the new evidence emerged, civil rights groups in the New York case asked the Supreme Court to postpone its decision and said that if it were not willing to confirm the Dutch judgments, it should return the question to a bottom court to consider the new evidence.
The Ministry of Justice has denied that Hofeller had influenced the administration's decision to add the question and characterized the new allegations as a "capricious" last-aid effort to track the Supreme Court's decision.
The plaintiffs' lawyers also suggested in court on Tuesday that the deadline for printing the forms in July could not be fixed, notes that the census chief scientist had in earlier
This story develops.