Controversial question

WASHINGTON—Conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court appear likely to vote in favor of asking respondents if they are U.S. citizens on the 2020 census after hearing oral arguments in Department of Commerce v. New York on Tuesday. The case seeks to block the Trump administration from adding the question to the once-a-decade survey of all U.S. residents. If included, the question could have far-reaching effects because census data is used to determine congressional representation and federal funding for a wide range of programs.

“We cannot fail to recognize that—at the heart of this matter—there is more at issue here than just surveys and statistics,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “It is about how our government is organized, how power is equally divided, and how aid is distributed equitably.” New York is one of 18 states and the District of Columbia, along with multiple cities, challenging the new census question, which they say could result in fewer immigrants completing the survey for fear of revealing their illegal status to authorities.

Census Bureau officials also oppose the change because they, too, believe it would result in millions fewer people completing the survey. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross decided to include the question anyway as part of an effort to provide states with data about compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Conservative justices on the high court pointed to a long history of the census questioning citizenship. All respondents were asked their citizenship until 1950, and it was included in a longer questionnaire until 2000.

“The United Nations recommends that countries ask a citizenship question on the census,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

The court’s liberal justices seemed to oppose it. “I searched the record and I don’t see any reason” for it, Justice Elena Kagan said.

Lower courts ruled in favor of the challengers and said Ross used the Voting Rights Act as a pretext for adding the question, but the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed to disagree that Ross acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

“Only a fool makes predictions based on how oral arguments go, but I’ll go out on a limb and say the Trump administration is looking at a 5-4 win,” lawyer Kenneth Klukowski told a conference call hosted by the conservative Federalist Society after the arguments on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule before the end of June to allow time for census forms to be printed.

Impeachment battle lines

President Donald Trump this week laid out his strategy for fighting possible future impeachment proceedings, tweeting that he would ask the Supreme Court to intervene if it came to that.

“If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Trump tweeted Wednesday. “Not only are there no ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ there are no Crimes by me at all … we waited for Mueller and WON, so now the Dems look to Congress as last hope!”

Some Democrats, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff of California, said the investigative report by special counsel Robert Mueller, which was released to the public last week, has enough evidence that the president might have obstructed the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to justify the start of impeachment proceedings. Others, such as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler of New York, whose committee is responsible for initiating impeachment proceedings, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, said Democrats are not yet ready to impeach the president.

Trump’s threat of taking the fight to the Supreme Court raises the question of whether the justices could or would intervene in the impeachment process. Courts have generally treated impeachment, which deals with whether someone should remain in public office, as a nonjudicial issue, in large part due to the Supreme Court’s Nixon v. United States ruling in 1993.

Walter Nixon, a U.S. district judge, declined to resign from his position even after a grand jury convicted him of committing perjury. Congress impeached him, but Nixon argued that the Senate had not properly tried his case. The Supreme Court said the question of whether the Senate had correctly handled the impeachment trial was a political question and therefore “nonjusticiable.” The majority also held that courts cannot review an impeachment decision because the Constitution gives that authority to Congress.

“On its face, that appears to shut out the court,” Thomas Jipping, a senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation, told Voice of America. “That said, House members all have an obligation to ensure that such constitutional responsibilities are not hijacked for partisan political purposes.” —Harvest Prude

The House vs. the White House

The House Judiciary Committee on Monday subpoenaed former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify as part of the investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. McGahn sat for more than 30 hours of interviews with Mueller’s team. He told investigators that Trump ordered him to fire Mueller but he refused to follow through and later refused to publicly deny the story once The New York Times reported it, according to the Mueller report.

The subpoena demands that McGahn testify to lawmakers at a hearing on May 21 and turn over any documents or records that are related to the Mueller probe by May 7.

The president said Tuesday that he opposes any of his current or former staffers testifying on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, Carl Kline, a Defense Department official, skipped a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing about the White House process for granting security clearances. Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said he will hold a vote to declare Kline in contempt of Congress for his noncompliance with the subpoena.

Home Democrats have launched a flurry of investigations into the Trump White House, his personal life, campaign, and businesses. Trump, meanwhile, has declared the investigations “presidential harassment.” This week, he sued Cummings after the chairman issued a subpoena to Mazars USA, a financial accounting firm that has worked with the president. Trump’s lawyers wrote in the court filing that the Democrats’ requests for Trump’s financial records amount to “all-out political war” against the president. —H.P.

2020 watch

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s announcement Thursday of his intent to run for president in 2020 makes him the 20th Democratic contender. Biden will likely emphasize his appeal to centrist voters. A good chunk of Democratic contenders either represent the party’s growing liberal wing, like Sen. Elizabeth Warren of New York, or have espoused liberal policies, like South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who wants to expand the Supreme Court.

Biden’s announcement focused on criticizing President Donald Trump, not policy specifics, but it is only a matter of time before he has to take a side on some of the party’s more liberal proposals, from universal healthcare to legal late-term abortions.

Seth Moulton, a third-term Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, also announced his presidential bid this week. In an appearance Monday on ABC’s Good Morning America, Moulton declared he is “not a socialist. I’m a Democrat. And I want to make that clear.” In November, Moulton headed a group of Democrats opposed to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., becoming House speaker again. The effort collapsed, and Moulton ultimately voted for Pelosi. —H.P.

Twitter chatter

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address concerns that the social media platform suppresses conservative voices. The meeting was private. An anonymous source told The Washington Post that the president questioned a drop in his number of Twitter followers, which Dorsey attributed to the company’s crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Trump has about 69 million followers. A number of conservative and religious users have similarly accused the platform of minimizing their presence.

The president tweeted afterward that it was a “great meeting” and that he looks “forward to keeping an open dialogue” with Dorsey.

“Twitter is here to serve the entire public conversation, and we intend to make it healthier and more civil,” Dorsey tweeted in response. “Thanks for the discussion about that.” —H.P.

Caller threatens Democratic lawmakers

Federal authorities announced Friday that they charged a 49-year-old South Florida man with placing threatening phone calls to three Democratic members of Congress. John Kless is accused of threatening to kill Reps. Eric Swalwell of California and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey. Both Swalwell and Booker are running for president in 2020. The U.S. Capitol Police revealed that in February Kless also allegedly made harassing calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Kless reportedly told Swalwell, who is running for president on a gun control platform, that “the day you come after our guns … is the day you’ll be dead.”

Kless’ arraignment is scheduled for May 3 in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. —H.P.