Alabama v. United States Department of Commerce

Note: The Brennan Center is not a participant in this case.

Summary

The State of Alabama filed a lawsuit against the Commerce Department and Census Bureau, challenging the Bureau’s policy of including all U.S. residents in the Census count used for apportionment.

Case Background

The State of Alabama and Congressman Morris J. Brooks Jr. challenged the Census Bureau’s policy of including all U.S. residents, regardless of their citizenship status, in the census count totals used for apportioning congressional seats and electoral college votes.

The suit argued that including undocumented individuals in the population count would deprive Alabama of its “rightful share of political representation,” as well as cause the state to lose a congressional seat and an electoral vote to a state with a higher number of undocumented individuals. The state contended that counting undocumented individuals violates the Constitution’s provisions governing congressional apportionment and the electoral college, as well as the federal government’s constitutional duty to conduct an “actual enumeration” of the population. The suit further argued that the policy of counting undocumented individuals is “arbitrary and capricious” and “contrary to law” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The state asked the court, among other things, to bar the Bureau from pursuing a total population count for apportioning congressional seats and electoral votes and to declare unconstitutional any apportionment of seats and votes based on total population.

On December 13, 2018 two groups – one consisting of the City of San Jose (California), King County (Washington), and the County of Santa Clara (California), and the other consisting of Chicanos Por La Causa and several individuals – were granted permission to intervene. 

On June 5, 2019, the court denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, allowing the Plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that including undocumented individuals in the population count used for congressional apportionment violates federal law. 

On September 9, 2019, two additional groups were granted permission to intervene as defendants in the case—one group consisting of 15 states, the District of Columbia, 9 cities and counties, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the other group consisting of Arlington County, Virginia and the City of Atlanta, Georgia.

On April 3, 2021, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. 

Documents 

• Complaint (May 21, 2018)
• Motion to Intervene by Diana Martinez, et al. (July 12, 2018)
• Motion to Intervene by City of San Jose and King County (July 17, 2018)
• Department of Justice’s Response to Motions to Intervene (July 20, 2018) 
• Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the Motion to Intervene (July 20, 2018) 
• Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (November 13, 2018)
• Joint Status Report (November 27, 2018)
• Memorandum Opinion (December 13, 2018)
• Order (December 13, 2018)
• Local Government Intervenors’ Supplemental Memorandum (January 4, 2019)
• Martinez Defendant-Intervenors’ Supplemental Memorandum (January 4, 2019)
• Status Report (February 1, 2019)
• Martinez Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply in Support of Supplemental Memorandum (February 1, 2019)
• Order (February 4, 2019)
• Amicus Brief of Immigration Reform Law Institute in Support of Plaintiffs and in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (February 22, 2019)
• Defendants’ Reply to Motion to Dismiss (February 25, 2019)
• Scheduling Order (May 3, 2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (June 5, 2019)
• Defendants’ Answer (July 19, 2019)
• Local Government Intervenors’ Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint (July 19, 2019)
• Answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, by Martinez Intervenors (July 19, 2019)
• Order (July 23, 2019)
• Opposed Motion for Leave to Intervene as Defendants (August 12, 2019)
• Proposed Defendant-Intervenors’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Leave to Intervene (August 12, 2019)
• Opposed Motion to Intervene and Memorandum in Support Thereof (August 12, 2019)
• Arlington County and Atlanta’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene (August 23, 2019)
• Movants’ Reply Submission in Support of Motion to Intervene in Response to Exhibit B of the Court’s Order (August 23, 2019)
• Joint Status Report (September 3, 2019)
• Memorandum Opinion (September 9, 2019)
• Initial Scheduling Order (September 9, 2019)
• First Amended Complaint (September 10, 2019)
• State and Other Defendant-Intervenors’ Answer to First Amended Complaint (October 1, 2019)
• Defendants’ Answer to First Amended Complaint (October 1, 2019)
• Local Government Intervenors’ Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (October 1, 2019)
• Martinez Intervenors’ Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Cross-Claim Against Defendants (October 1, 2019)
• Defendants’ Answer to Martinez Intervenors’ Cross-Claim (December 2, 2019)
• Amended Scheduling Order (January 13, 2020)
• Second Amended Scheduling Order (June 16, 2020) 
• Defendants’ Notice of Presidential Memorandum (July 21, 2020) 
• Order (July 21, 2020) 
• Plaintiffs’ Brief in Response to the Court’s Order (August 3, 2020)
• Defendants’ Brief in Response to the Court’s Order (August 3, 2020)
• Local Government Defendant-Intervenors and State and Government Defendant-Intervenors Opening Brief (August 3, 2020)
• Local Government Defendant-Intervenors and State and Government Defendant-Intervenors Reply Brief (August 10, 2020)
• Plaintiffs’ Response Brief (August 10, 2020)
• Martinez Intervenors’ Response to the Parties’ Briefs re: the Effects of the July 21, 2020 Presidential Memorandum (August 10, 2020)
• Defendants’ Reply (August 10, 2020)
• Joint Status Report (September 30, 2020)
• Text Order (October 14, 2020)
• Joint Motion to Stay (October 30, 2020)
• Order to Show Cause (October 30, 2020)
• Order (November 2, 2020)
• Response to Show Cause Order (November 4, 2020)
• Text Order (December 22, 2020)
• Joint Motion to Stay (January 5, 2021)
• Order (January 8, 2021)
• Plaintiffs’ Response to the Court’s Show Cause Order (February 4, 2021)
• Federal Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Show Cause Order Response (February 17, 2021)
• State and Other Government-Intervenors’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Response to Show Cause (February 17, 2021)
• Martinez Defendant-Intervenors’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Show Cause (February 17, 2021)
• Plaintiffs’ Reply (February 19, 2021)
• Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (May 3, 2021)
• Order of Dismissal (May 3, 2021)