Dept of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Michael A. Carvin (Argued the cause for the appellees in No. 98-564)
Maureen E. Mahnoney (Argued the cause for the appellees in No. 98-404)
Maureen E. Mahoney (on behalf of the Appellees in No. 98-404)
Seth P. Waxman (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellants)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
98-404
Appellee: 
U.S. House of Representatives
Appellant: 
Dept of Commerce
Consolidation: 
Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. Glavin et al., No. 98-564
Opinion: 
525 U.S. 316 (1999)
Categories: 
reapportionment, legislative policy, congress, voting, elections

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Dept of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives , 525 U.S. 316 (1999)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_98_404)
Facts of the Case: 

Under the Census Clause (Art. I, Sect. 2, Cl. 3), Congress is authorized to conduct a census of the American public every 10 years. Among other purposes, the census provides a basis for apportionment of congressional districts. Under the Census Act, Congress delegated this responsibility to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary). When the Census Bureau (Bureau) announced plans to use two new forms of discretionary statistical sampling in the 2000 census, various United States residents, counties, and the House of Representatives challenged the constitutionality of the new sampling methods in two separate suits. On direct appeals from three-judge district courts enjoining the use of the new sampling methods, the Supreme Court consolidated the cases and granted certiorari.

Question: 

Is the use of statistical sampling in the execution of the census inconsistent with provisions of the Census Act or in conflict with the Census Clause of the Constitution?

Conclusion: 

Yes with regard to the Census Act. The Court began by noting that the plaintiffs in the joined cases had good standing to bring their challenges because they stood to suffer a decrease in the number of their congressional representatives and a corresponding dilution of voting strength. The Court then added that the disputed Amendment to the Census Act, authorizing the discretionary use of statistical sampling, did not alter the Act's older statutory prohibition against the use of sampling. Consequently, the Court struck down the sampling provision on statutory grounds and avoided the constitutional question.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for U.S. House of Representatives, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 13 U.S.C. 1

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent, joined Ginsburg's dissent
Souter
Voted with the majority, joined Scalia's concurrence
Thomas
Wrote a dissent, joined Stevens' dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a dissent
Breyer

Full Opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor