Case 8:18-cv-00891-PWG Document 49 Filed 09/04/18 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 8:18-cv-00891 PWG BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, et al., Defendants. REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Case 8:18-cv-00891-PWG Document 49 Filed 09/04/18 Page 2 of 20 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................................................... 2 I. THIS CASE IS NOT JUSTICIABLE .............................................................................................. 2 A. Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Maintain this Action. .............................................................. 2 1. Plaintiffs Have Failed To Plausibly Allege a Concrete, Particularized Injury in Fact. ............................................................................................................ 2 2. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Plausibly Allege That Their Purported Injuries Are Traceable to Any Action of Defendants. ........................................ 4 3. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Plausibly Allege That Their Actions Are Redressable By Any Action of This Court. ........................................................... 5 B. Plaintiffs’ Claim is Not Ripe. ................................................................................................ 7 C. Plaintiffs’ Suit is Barred by the Political Question Doctrine. ........................................... 9 II. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE AN ENUMERATION CLAUSE CLAIM ........................ 14 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 15 i Case 8:18-cv-00891-PWG Document 49 Filed 09/04/18 Page 3 of 20 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Carey v. Klutznick, 637 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1980) .................................................................................................................. 9, 11 Carey v. Klutznick, 653 F.2d 732 (2d Cir. 1981) ....................................................................................................................... 14 City of Detroit v. Franklin, 4 F.3d 1367 (6th Cir. 1993) .......................................................................................................................... 3 City of Phila. v. Klutznick, 503 F. Supp. 663 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ............................................................................................................. 12 Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Communities for a Great Nw., Ltd. v. Clinton, 112 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2000) .............................................................................................................. 6 Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ...................................................................................................................... 3, 8, 10, 12 Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children’s Guild, 742 F. Supp. 2d 772 (D. Md. 2010) ............................................................................................................ 1 Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992) ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................................ 7 Glavin v. Clinton, 19 F. Supp. 2d 543 (E.D. Va. 1998), aff’d, Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999) ..................................................... 3 Long Term Care Pharmacy All. v. Leavitt, 530 F. Supp. 2d 173 (D.D.C. 2008) ............................................................................................................ 6 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) .......................................................................................................................... 2, 3, 5, 6 Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) ....................................................................................................................................... 6 ii Case 8:18-cv-00891-PWG Document 49 Filed 09/04/18 Page 4 of 20 Miller v. Brown, 462 F.3d 312 (4th Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................................ 8 Ohio Forestry Ass’n v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726 (1998) ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ................................................................................................................................... 2 State of New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 315 F. Supp. 3d 766 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) ................................................................................................ 11, 12 Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Tucker v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 958 F.2d 1411 (7th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................................... 11 U.S. House of Representatives v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 1998), appeal dismissed, 525 U.S. 316 (1999)............................................... 12 Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002) .................................................................................................................... 3, 10, 11, 14 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Wisconsin v. City of NY, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) .................................................................................................................................. 10, 11 Young v. Klutznick, 497 F. Supp. 1318 (E.D. Mich. 1980), rev’d, 652 F.2d 617 (6th Cir. 1981).......................................... 12 STATUTES U.S. Const. art. I, § 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 10 OTHER AUTHORITIES Thomas R. Lee, The Original Understanding of the Census Clause: Statistical Estimates and the Constitutional Requirement of an “Actual Enumeration”, 77 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2002) .......................................................................................................................... 10 U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789–1945 (1949) ....................... 10 iii Case 8:18-cv-00891-PWG Document 49 Filed 09/04/18 Page 5 of 20 INTRODUCTION After 60 pages of briefing, limited but substantial pre-motion discovery, and public access to a huge volume of information regarding census operations, two things are clear: this Court has no jurisdiction here and Plaintiffs are no closer to a meritorious case than they were when their complaint was filed in March. In opposing Plaintiffs’ attempt, in essence, to install the Court as Director of the Census Bureau, Defendants set forth the multiple reasons this case is not justiciable and explained why the Court should not second guess complex policy decisions regarding pre-census funding, staffing, leadership, and operations. Plaintiffs’ opposition does nothing to dispel these justiciability concerns. In particular, Plaintiffs fail to explain how the Court has any power to award relief that may remedy their purported injuries. Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 16-18, ECF No. 46 (“Pls.’ Opp’n”). And Plaintiffs say next to nothing about how this case is ripe for review in light of the numerous funding, staffing, leadership, and operational changes that may occur before April 1, 2020, and the hardship of judicial review on Defendants. Id. at 18-19. As for their remaining arguments concerning the political question doctrine and the Enumeration Clause, Plaintiffs misread governing case law in an attempt to gloss over the fact that the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) does not, and could not, allege that the Secretary is estimating rather than counting the population. For these reasons, and those set forth in Defendants’ previous memorandum, the Court should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to constitutionalize for judicial review every logistical decision in the 10-year lead up to the census, and should dismiss this case.1 1 Plaintiffs did not oppose Defendants’ argument (Defs. Mem. at 29-30) that Plaintiffs’ claims against the President are improper and, therefore, such claims should be deemed abandoned and dismissed. See Ferdinand-Davenport v. Children’s Guild, 742