Case Summary (Originally Ohio v. Coggins)
On February 25, 2021, the State of Ohio filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Acting Secretary of Commerce, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the Acting Director of the U.S. Census Bureau, challenging the Census Bureau's delayed release of the 2020 census population data necessary for redistricting to the States. Federal statute requires that the Secretary of Commerce, who oversees the Census Bureau, must tabulate and report population data to the States "as expeditiously as possible" following the census, and "in any event no later than one year after the decennial census date." The decennial census date was April 1, 2020, and therefore the statutory deadline for providing such data to the States is no later than March 31, 2021. The plaintiffs allege that the delayed release date of September 30, 2021, will prevent the state from meeting its constitutionally prescribed deadlines for completing its redistricting process, and in making this decision the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Census Bureau are violating both the Census Act (13 U.S.C. Section 141(c)) and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs seek a declaration from the court that the defendants' decision to delay the release is unlawful, and are requesting that the court set aside that decision and issue an injunction either prohibiting the defendants from releasing Ohio's redistricting data beyond March 31, 2021, or otherwise requiring the defendants to provide the state with such data at the earliest date deemed equitable.
On March 24, 2021, the District Court denied the plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Noting that the U.S. Census Bureau has already indicated it would be "impossible" for them to provide redistricting data to the states earlier than the delayed release date, the court found that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the injury alleged was not redressable by the court. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged an injury caused by the defendants' actions because under the Ohio Constitution, the state has other alternatives to using census data to redraw its districts and the plaintiffs had not claimed that these alternatives were less reliable than the census data, but rather that the defendants were violating their statutory duties. That same day, the plaintiffs appealed the district court's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio - 3:21-cv-00064
- Complaint for Injunctive and Mandamus Relief - 2/25/21
- The State of Ohio's Combined Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and Memorandum in Support of the Combined Motion and Petition - 2/25/21
- Defendants Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Writ of Mandamus - 3/12/21
- Declaration of Michael Thieme - 3/12/21
- Declaration of James Whitehorne - 3/12/21
- Reply in Support of Combined Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - 3/14/21
- Amicus Curiae Brief for National Urban League; League of Women Voters; Black Alliance for Just Immigration; King County, Washington; City of San Jose, California; The NAACP; The Navajo Nation; City of Los Angeles; City of Salinas; City of Chicago; and Gila River Indian Community - 3/15/21
- Status Report - 3/17/21
- Entry and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF. 6, Dismissing Case for Lack of Jurisdiction, and Terminating Case - 3/24/21
- Plaintiff State of Ohio's Notice of Appeal - 3/24/21
- Notice of Appeal - 3/25/21
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - No. 21-3294