Parks v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Civil Action No. TDC-19-0642
| Decision Date | 24 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. TDC-19-0642 |
| Parties | Richard Ameninhat P. PARKS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, United States Census Bureau, Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary of Commerce, Karen Dunn Kelley, in her official capacity as the Undersecretary for Economic Affairs, performing the nonexclusive duties of the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, Steven Dillingham, in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the U.S. Census Bureau, and Ron Jarmin, in his official capacity as an employee of the U.S. Census Bureau performing the non-exclusive duties and functions of the Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer of the U.S. Census Bureau, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Richard Ameninhat P. Parks, Silver Spring, MD, pro se.
Matthew A. Haven, U.S. Attorney's Office, Baltimore, MD, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Richard Ameninhat Parks, who is self-represented, has filed a civil action against the United States Department of Commerce, the United States Census Bureau, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Department of Commerce officials (collectively "the Government"),1 alleging that the inclusion of a question about the race of respondents in the 2020 Census is barred by both the United States Constitution and federal law. Presently pending before the Court is the Government's Motion to Dismiss. Upon review of the submitted materials, the Court finds that no hearing is necessary. See D. Md. Local R. 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion will be GRANTED.
The United States Constitution requires that the population of the nation be counted every ten years. U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Responsibility for this colossal undertaking rests in the first instance with Congress, id. , which has delegated this duty to the Secretary of Commerce ("the Secretary"), 13 U.S.C. § 141(a) (2018), who is assisted by the United States Census Bureau ("the Census Bureau"), id. §§ 2, 21. Although the Constitution provides for the enumeration of all persons in the United States as a means of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population, U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, many states, including Maryland, also use census data to draw state legislative districts. See Md. Const. art. III, § 5 ; see also, e.g. , Texas Const. art. 3, § 26. In addition to its use in drawing electoral districts, census data is also used "to allocate federal funds to the States." Dep't of Commerce v. New York , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2561, 204 L.Ed.2d 978 (2019).
The Census collects more data than just the number of individuals in the United States. Congress has explicitly authorized the Secretary to use the enumeration process to "obtain such other census information as necessary." 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). A substantial portion of this "other census information" is "demographic information, which ‘is used for such varied purposes as computing federal grant-in-aid benefits, drafting of legislation, urban and regional planning, business planning, and academic and social studies.’ " New York , 139 S. Ct. at 2561 (quoting Baldrige v. Shapiro , 455 U.S. 345, 353 n.9, 102 S.Ct. 1103, 71 L.Ed.2d 199 (1982) ).
Among the demographic data collected through the Census is the race of persons in the United States. This data is particularly important for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ("VRA"), 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301 – 10702 (2018), and voting rights litigation more generally. See, e.g. , Bush v. Vera , 517 U.S. 952, 983, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (plurality) (); Valdespino v. Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. , 168 F.3d 848, 853-54 (5th Cir. 1999) (); United States v. City of Eastpointe , 378 F. Supp. 3d 589, 602-04 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (). The 2020 Census form, which Parks attached as an exhibit to his Amended Complaint, asks the question, "What is this person's race?" Census Form, Am. Compl. Ex. 1, ECF No. 13-1. The options for responses include "White," "Black or African Am.," "American Indian or Alaska Native," 11 different categories for individuals of Asian or Pacific Islander descent, and "Some other race." Id.
Parks, who describes himself as having African ancestry, resides in Wheaton, Maryland and receives federal social security disability benefits and financial assistance from Montgomery County, Maryland. In his Amended Complaint, he states that he is not "a believer or practitioner of race/races/racism," traces the problematic use of various racial terms throughout American history, and argues that the use of the term "black" is offensive and "derogatory."
Am. Compl. at 15, 29, ECF No. 13. The Census Bureau, he alleges, has ignored the problems with using this term. Parks asserts that asking respondents about race in the 2020 Census and, more specifically, using the term "black," will cause an undercount of African Americans. Parks contends that the result of such an undercount would be to "dilute his vote by overpopulating his congressional and legislative districts," and to "reduce federal funding to his localities, including for programs on which he directly relies." Id. at 34.
Parks filed this action in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. After the Government removed the case to this Court, Parks filed an Amended Complaint. Construed liberally, the Amended Complaint asserts that including a question in the 2020 Census on race generally, and with the use of the term "black" specifically, violates the Enumeration Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 3, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 – 559, 701 – 706 (2018).
In its Motion, the Government seeks dismissal of this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that Parks lacks standing to raise his challenge to the inclusion of a question regarding race and the use of the term "black" in the 2020 Census, and under Rule 12(b)(6) on the grounds that Parks's Enumeration Clause and APA claims each fail to state a plausible claim for relief. As the Court finds the Government's standing argument dispositive, it need not address the Government's merits arguments.
Article III of the Constitution limits the federal judicial power to resolving "Cases" or "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III § 2; Ansley v. Warren , 861 F.3d 512, 517 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, whether a plaintiff has identified an actual case or controversy, and thus has standing to advance that case, is a question of subject matter jurisdiction. South Carolina v. United States , 912 F.3d 720, 726 (4th Cir. 2019). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a defendant to move for dismissal when it believes that the plaintiff has failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff has the burden to show that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., Div. of Standex Int'l Corp. , 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). When a defendant asserts that the plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction, the allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true under the same standard as in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and "the motion must be denied if the complaint alleges sufficient facts to invoke subject matter jurisdiction." Kerns v. United States , 585 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). When a defendant asserts that facts outside of the complaint deprive the court of jurisdiction, the Court "may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment." Velasco v. Gov't of Indonesia , 370 F.3d 392, 398 (4th Cir. 2004) ; Kerns , 585 F.3d at 192. The court should grant a Rule 12(b)(1) motion based on a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction "only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law." Evans , 166 F.3d at 647 (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States , 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991) ).
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint because Parks lacks standing to assert his claims. An "essential element" of the Constitution's limitation on the power of the federal courts is "that any party who invokes the court's authority must establish standing." Ansley , 861 F.3d at 517. "[I]t is not enough that the party invoking the power of the court have a keen interest in the issue." Hollingsworth v. Perry , 570 U.S. 693, 700, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013). Establishing standing requires the plaintiff to show (1) an "injury in fact," (2) "a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of," and (3) that a favorable decision will likely redress the injury. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Here, the Government argues that Parks has failed to meet all three of these requirements. Because injury in fact is "the ‘[f]irst and foremost’ element of Article III standing," the Court begins there. Baehr v. Creig Northrop Team, P.C. , 953 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir. 2020) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't , 523 U.S. 83, 103, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998) ).
In order to establish an injury in fact, a plaintiff must show an "invasion of a legally protected interest" that is both (1) "concrete and particularized," and (2) "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lu...
To continue reading
Request your trial