Case Summary
On May 21, 2018, the State of Alabama and an Alabama Congressman filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Director of the Census Bureau challenging the Bureau’s Residence Criteria and Residence Situations Rule (“Residence Rule”) as unconstitutional and unlawful. The Resident Rule provides that foreign nationals living in the U.S. will be counted in the decennial census and allocated to the state population where their usual residence is – regardless of whether they are lawfully present in the country. Plaintiffs claimed the Rule would cause Alabama to lose a congressional seat and electoral vote in the next apportionment and violated Article I, § 2, Article II, § 1, and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution along with the Administrative Procedures Act, Reapportionment Act, and Census Act. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief barring the enforcement of the Residence Rule and invalidating any reapportionment scheme based upon total population.
- On June 5, 2019, the district court held the plaintiffs had standing and permitted several other states, cities, counties, and organizations to intervene in the case as defendants.
- On October 9, 2020, the court denied the plaintiffs’ request to appoint a three-judge panel for the case.
- On November 2, 2020, the court granted a joint motion to stay the case pending the U.S. Supreme Court’s resolution of another census-related appeal, Trump v. New York. SCOTUS dismissed that case on December 18, 2020.
- On January 8, 2021, the court again granted a joint motion to stay the case and ordered the plaintiffs to show why their alleged injuries were not merely speculative by the earlier of February 10, 2021, or within 7 days of their receipt of apportionment figures.
- On January 20, 2021, President Biden signed an Executive Order directing the Department of Commerce to calculate state population totals and reapportionment figures without regard to immigration status thereby revoking President Trump’s Executive Order 13880 and Presidential Memorandum of July 21, 2020.
- On May 3, 2021, the court dismissed the case upon joint stipulation of the parties.
Case Library
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama - 2:18-cv-00772
- Complaint for Declaratory Relief - 5/21/18
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss - 11/13/18
- Memorandum Opinion - 12/13/18
- Order - 12/13/18
- Initial Brief of Amicus Curiae Immigration Reform Law - 2/22/19
- Defendants' Reply Submission - 2/25/19
- Memorandum Opinion Seeking Declaratory Judgment - 6/5/19
- Defendants' Answer - 7/19/19
- Local Government Intervenors' Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs' Complaint - 7/19/19
- Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - 7/19/19
- First Amended Complaint - 9/10/19
- State and Other Defendant-Intervenors' Answer to First Amended Complaint - 10/1/19
- Defendants' Answer to First Amended Complaint - 10/1/19
- Local Government Intervenors' Answer and Defenses to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 10/1/19
- Intervenors' Answer to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint - 10/1/19
- Defendants' Answer to Intervenors' Cross Claim - 12/2/19
- Defendants' Notice of Presidential Memorandum - 7/21/20
- Order - 7/21/20
- Defendants' Notice of Additional Lawsuits Challenging the Recent Presidential Memorandum - 7/29/20
- Plaintiffs' Brief in Response to the Court's July 23, 2020 Briefing Order (Doc. # 153) - 8/3/20
- Opening Brief in Response to the Court's July 21, 2020 Order - 8/3/20
- Defendants' Brief in Response to the Court's July 21, 2020 Order and Request for Scheduling Order - 8/3/20
- Martinez Defendant-Intervenors' Brief Regarding the Effect that the President's July 21, 2020, Memorandum has on the Parties' Claims - 8/3/20
- Reply Brief in Response to the Court’s July 21, 2020 Order - 8/10/20
- Plaintiffs' Response to the Other Parties' Initial Filings Regarding the Court's July 23, 2020 Briefing Order - 8/10/20
- Martinez Intervenors' Response to the Parties' Briefs Regarding the Effects of the July 21, 2020 Presidential Memorandum - 8/10/20
- Defendants' Reply to the Parties' Briefs Concerning the Effect of the July 21, 2020 Presidential Memorandum - 8/10/20
- Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of a Three-Judge Court - 9/23/20
- Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for the Appointment of a Three-Judge Court - 9/30/20
- Joint Status Report - 9/30/20
- Martinez Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Three-Judge Panel - 9/30/20
- Memorandum Opinion and Order - 10/9/20
- Show Cause Order - 10/30/20
- Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings - 10/30/20
- Joint Status Report - 10/30/20
- Order - 11/2/20
- Response from the Local Government Defendant-Intervenors and the State and Other Government Defendant-Intervenors to the Court's October 30 Show Cause Order - 11/4/20
- Joint Motion to Extend the Stay of Proceedings - 1/5/21
- Joint Status Report - 1/6/21
- Order - 1/8/21
- Notice - 1/21/21
- Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Martinez Intervenors' Crossclaim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) - 1/27/21
- Order - 1/28/21
- Response from Plaintiffs to the Court's January 8, 2021 Show Cause Order - 2/4/21
- Federal Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Show-Cause-Order Response - 2/17/21
- State and Other Government Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Response to this Court's Order to Show Cause - 2/17/21
- Martinez Defendant-Intervenors' Reply to Plaintiff's Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause - 2/17/21
- Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' Responses to the Court's January 8, 2021 Show Cause Order - 2/19/21
- Joint Stipulation of Dismissal - 5/3/21
- Order of Dismissal - 5/3/21