Voting Rights and Democracy

Kravitz vs. U.S. Department of Commerce

In Kravitz, et al. vs. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al., a federal district judge is considering whether the addition of a citizenship question to the 2020 Census violates the Census Clause of the Constitution.

In Brief

The Constitution requires the federal government to count all people living in the United States.
Curbing manipulation of the Census by the political branches was one of the main reasons for including the Census Clause in the Constitution.
A citizenship question does not serve any Census-related purpose, would hurt under-counted communities, and does not help enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Case Summary

On March 26, 2018—many years into preparation and testing for the 2020 Census—the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce ordered the Census Bureau to add a citizenship question to the Census, turning a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence that this question will deter participation by immigrants across the country, who do not want an official record of their immigration status and fear that their responses will be used by the government to harm them and their families. The Secretary also announced that the government would use administrative records to double-check the accuracy of responses to the citizenship question. Individuals from Maryland and Arizona sued the Department of Commerce in federal district court for violating the Constitution’s Census Clause, which requires an “actual Enumeration” of all persons in this country.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of current members of Congress and bipartisan former members of Congress in support of Kravitz and her co-plaintiffs. In our brief, we explain that the Constitution requires the federal government to count all people living in the United States, whether they are citizens or noncitizens, whether they were born in the United States or in a distant part of the world.  The total-population standard—chosen by our Constitution’s Framers more than two centuries ago and reaffirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment following a bloody civil war—was considered crucial to ensuring equal representation.  We then explain that Congress’s power to determine the “manner” of conducting the Census does not permit an end run around the requirement to count all persons, citizens and noncitizens alike.  Curbing manipulation of the Census by the political branches was one of the main reasons for including the Census Clause in the Constitution.  Last, we explain that a citizenship question does not serve any Census-related purpose, and that the Trump administration’s claim that it helps to enforce the Voting Rights Act is false.  Since the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, the Census has never asked all persons to report their citizenship status.  This is a specious justification for undercutting what the Constitution mandates: a count of all the people, regardless of their citizenship status.

The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiffs have standing and that they have stated a claim that defendants have violated both the Census Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court took up this issue in April 2019 in New York v. Department of Commerce. In June, the Court held that the decision to add a citizenship question to the census was pretextual, and the Administration subsequently announced that it would print the forms for the 2020 Census without a citizenship question.

Case Timeline

  • June 26, 2018

    CAC files amicus brief

    D. Md. Amicus Brief
  • July 18, 2018

    The district court hears oral argument

  • August 22, 2018

    The district court denies defendants’ motion to dismiss

More from Voting Rights and Democracy

Voting Rights and Democracy
April 15, 2026

David Gans on the History of the Reconstruction Amendments, and the Connection to Current Supreme Court Cases, including Callais

Election Law Blog
CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans' article in Slate about...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

The Alito Wing of the Supreme Court Sure Sounds Sold on Trump’s Voter Fraud Lies

Slate
CAC Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David H. Gans' article...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

The Supreme Court’s Conspiracy-Brained Justices Are Ready to Limit Mail-In Voting

Balls and Strikes
Balls & Strikes summarized the arguments in Watson v. RNC, linking to CAC's brief. Read more at...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 21, 2026

Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick: The Roberts Court’s Internal Reckoning

Slate
The Constitutional Accountability Center's brief in Watson v. RNC was discussed on Slate's Amicus podcast. Listen to the full...
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 23, 2026

CAC Release: The Conservative Attack on Voting By Mail Comes to the Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Watson v....
By: David H. Gans, Simon Chin
Voting Rights and Democracy
March 19, 2026

“Myths Around Election Day Deadlines: What the Civil War Teaches Us About Absentee Voting”

Election Law Blog
CAC Senior Research Associate Lucy Resar‘s research on the history of absentee voting was featured on Election Law Blog....
By: Lucy Resar