Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Vows on Hill and in court to stop Trump from keeping immigrants out of House count

U.S. census mailing
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Democrats and civil liberties groups are threatening legislation and lawsuits to prevent President Trump from excluding undocumented immigrants from the population counts used to apportion House seats for the next decade.

The president directed the government on Tuesday to provide the states with census numbers that exclude millions of people living in the country illegally — setting up a potential balance of powers fight as well as a constitutional dispute over whether congressional districts should be drawn based on numbers of people, as has been the long-standing practice, or only citizens.

Civil rights groups gave notice in federal court Wednesday that they would fight Trump's effort. The American Civil Liberties Union readied a separate lawsuit. The House Oversight and Reform Committee announced it would convene an emergency hearing next week and may write a bill to thwart the president. And Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed that Democrats "will vigorously contest the president's unconstitutional and unlawful attempt to impair the census."


The Census Bureau is in the middle of its once-a-decade head count, among the most important and extensive bureaucratic undertakings of a functioning democracy. The results will not only determine how many of the 435 House seats shift to the fastest growing states at the expense of other places, but it will also provide numbers for drawing election lines at the state, county and city level. The numbers will also determine the distribution over the next decade of $1.5 trillion in federal spending that's allocated by demographic formula.

More than 62 percent of households have responded, and census takers last week started appearing at the homes where residents haven't responded. The bureau this week mailed out 34 million postcards to households reminding them to answer the census questionnaire as required by law.

"It is the policy of the United States to exclude from the apportionment base aliens who are not in a lawful immigration status," Trump said in a memorandum Tuesday. It said that states with undocumented immigrants should not be given more representatives as this would only encourage them to continue to harbor such people.

If Trump gets what he wants, which could end up requiring the Supreme Court to disregard the consensus understanding of the Constitution, the effect would be more seats shifting to Republican states instead of Democratic ones.

"The Constitution requires that everyone in the U.S. be counted in the census," Dale Ho, the voting rights chief at the ACLU, said in a statement. "President Trump cannot pick and choose. He tried to add a citizenship question to the census and lost in the Supreme Court. His latest attempt to weaponize the census for an attack on immigrant communities will be found unconstitutional. We'll see him in court, and win, again."

Last year, Trump's effort to put a citizenship question on the census was derailed by the high court, making it difficult to determine how many undocumented immigrants are in he country.

In a statement accompanying his memorandum, however, Trump noted that federal agencies "have been collecting the information needed to conduct an accurate census and inform responsible decisions about public policy, voting rights, and representation in Congress."

Under that executive order, which civil rights groups are already fighting in federal court, agencies are to provide the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, with data and records that could be used to separate citizens and noncitizens.

The president's latest move, "if carried out, could upend the balance of power," said Sean Moulton, a senior policy analyst at the Project on Government Oversight. "This move by the White House to ignore a significant percentage of the population and summarily redefine how we apportion representative power in this country is inappropriate and potentially unconstitutional."

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said Trump's action highlights his "inexhaustible contempt for our constitutional system and the rule of law. The U.S. Constitution requires 'an actual enumeration' of the 'whole number of persons' in the country for 'apportioning representatives among the states in Congress.'"

As evidence that his action is legal, Trump cited a unanimous 1992 Supreme Court decision that found the Commerce Department could apportion members of the military serving overseas at their home of record: "Congress has provided that it is 'the president's personal transmittal of the report to Congress' that 'settles the apportionment' of representatives among the States, and the president's discretion to settle the apportionment is more than ceremonial or ministerial and is essential "to the integrity of the process."

Groups in favor of less immigration praised the decision.

"The process of including illegal aliens in the census count for the purpose of reapportionment, as it has been practiced in recent decades, is fundamentally unfair to law-abiding Americans, and the president should be applauded for taking long overdue action to safeguard their interests and constitutional rights," said Dan Stein of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

However, the courts have rejected attempts by FAIR to remove undocumented immigrants from apportionment. The Supreme Court already struck down Trump's attempt to add a citizenship question to the census because it was added with the intention of undercounting undocumented immigrants and lowering the amount of funds and representatives these areas have.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less