Above link is to **Memorandum of law in support of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgement or preliminary injunction." The table of contents below gives a general outline of the arguments being made.
TABLE OF CONTENTS … i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES … iii
INTRODUCTION … 1
BACKGROUND … 2
I. Constitutional and statutory framework… 2
II. The Presidential Memorandum. … 4
III. Events precipitating the Presidential Memorandum. … 5
ARGUMENT … 7
I. Standard of review. … 7
II. Plaintiffs include jurisdictions and residents of jurisdictions that would lose representation if undocumented immigrants were excluded from the population base used for congressional apportionment. … 8
III. Defendants’ decision to exclude undocumented immigrants from the apportionment base violates Article I and the Fourteenth Amendment. … 10
A. The Constitution explicitly requires the population base for apportionment to include the whole number of persons in each State. … 10
B. Apportioning Representatives based on numbers other than the actual enumeration from the decennial census is also unconstitutional. … 24
IV. The Memorandum is ultra vires under the statutory scheme Congress enacted to implement the required decennial census and reapportionment of House seats. … 27
A. The Memorandum violates the statutory requirements to count the total population, and to report and use that total for apportionment purposes. … 27
B. The Memorandum violates the Census Act by producing apportionment figures that are not based solely on the decennial census. … 33
C. The Memorandum violates 2 U.S.C. § 2a by producing apportionment figures that are not based solely on a ministerial calculation. … 36
D. This Court has equitable authority to correct the Presidential Memorandum’s ultra vires mandates. … 38
V. Alternatively, a preliminary injunction is warranted to prevent irreparable harm. … 40
A. The Presidential Memorandum will deter immigrants and their households from responding to the 2020 census. … 42
B. By depressing response rates, the Presidential Memorandum will irreparably degrade the quality of census data vital to public policymaking and cause Plaintiffs to lose federal funding. … 47
C. Plaintiffs will be irreparably harmed by Defendants’ efforts to reallocate political power away from their jurisdictions. … 49
D. The balance of equities and public interest favor a preliminary injunction. … 50
CONCLUSION … 52