This morning, the justices heard 80 minutes of argument in one of the term’s highest-stakes cases, Department of Commerce v. New York, a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. Amy Howe analyzed the argument for this blog, in a post that originally appeared at Howe on the Court, reporting that “the justices seemed divided along ideological lines, with the conservative justices appearing ready to uphold the use of the question.”

Additional early coverage comes from Hansi Lo Wang and Nina Totenberg of NPR, Pete Williams of NBC News, Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters, Ariane de Vogue of CNN, Mark Sherman of AP, Robert Barnes and Mark Berman of The Washington Post, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Greg Stohr of Bloomberg, Devin Dwyer of ABC News, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, Shannon Bream and Bill Mears of Fox News, Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal and Adam Liptak of The New York Times.

Early commentary comes from Ruthann Robson for the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who notes that Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan characterized the decision to add the question as a “solution in search of a problem.”

Posted in Round-up

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Afternoon round-up: Oral argument in Department of Commerce v. New York, SCOTUSblog (Apr. 23, 2019, 5:29 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/04/afternoon-round-up-oral-argument-in-department-of-commerce-v-new-york/