Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Judge Furman Sanctions DOJ in Census Citizenship Question Case

By Michael Keough on May 21, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In an opinion today, Judge Furman granted a motion for sanctions against the Department of Justice for failing to review and produce hundreds of relevant documents in the litigation over when a citizenship question could be included in the 2020 Census (see our previous coverage here).  The case centered on whether the inclusion of the citizenship question was a proper exercise of executive authority. The withheld documents provided evidence that the question was included to assist in political redistricting efforts, and that the stated justification (that the question was added to help enforce the Voting Rights Act) was pretextual.

While Judge Furman agreed that the conduct was sanctionable, he noted that the most appropriate remedy – judgment in favor of the plaintiffs – had already occurred:

To be sure, this was not DOJ’s finest hour. At best, DOJ failed to produce more than ten percent of the documents that Defendants were required to produce as part of this litigation. But the Court cannot conclude from the record before it that further investigation into possible sanctionable conduct is warranted in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, and as an exercise of the Court’s “wide discretion,” the Court will not impose sanctions on Defendants beyond the litigation defeat they have already suffered, or the fee award in which they have acquiesced — except to order that Defendants pay the costs and fees associated with a portion of this motion and its embedded disputes.

Nor will the Court invite further discovery in order to determine exactly who did what and when with respect to the decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census. Litigation, despite its truth-seeking function, sometimes produces an incomplete or unsatisfying version of the facts. In this case, however, the facts that Plaintiffs were able to prove at trial won them complete relief in this Court and in the Supreme Court of the United States. If there is more to the story, principles of judicial restraint counsel in favor of letting it be uncovered and told somewhere else.

Photo of Michael Keough Michael Keough

Michael Keough focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense matters. His experience spans the entire life cycle of cases, from discovery disputes through trial and appellate matters, and has ample experience in case management.

Read more about Michael KeoughEmail
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    SDNY Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo