Whether the 2020 census will include a question on U.S. citizenship is up to the Supreme Court, but that didn’t stop a federal judge in California from issuing a 126-page ruling late Wednesday blocking the citizenship question anyway.

BREAKING: Federal judge in California grants sweeping 126-page ruling blocking citizenship question from the #2020Census. Background from @CourthouseNews: https://t.co/o0amnyRGRn pic.twitter.com/fxU2KBbrPD — Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) March 6, 2019

“The citizenship question on the 2020 Census if fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg. Huh?

"In short, the inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 Census threatens the very foundation of our democratic system—and does so based on a self-defeating rationale." U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg The ruling is here: https://t.co/2TEuJYbLO7 — Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) March 6, 2019

Notably, unlike Judge Furman's ruling in New York, Judge Seeborg found the citizenship question unconstitutional in defiance of the Enumeration Clause. It's a far more sweeping victory for the challengers. — Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) March 6, 2019

Courthouse News reports:

In closing arguments Friday in the federal bench trial over the citizenship question, attorneys for the State of California and six California cities said adding the question would jeopardize the census’ accuracy, as both legal and undocumented immigrants would be less likely to participate. … “The citizenship question will provide a differential undercount of Latinos and non-citizens, and by extension, Californians,” said Deputy Attorney General Matthew Wise. “California’s budget line item for census outreach swelled from a pre-citizenship question allocation of $43.3 million to a final allocation of $90.3 million.” He said undercounting California’s large Latino population would ultimately lead California to lose both federal funding and a seat in Congress.

So they’re admitting that California wants illegal immigrants counted so the state doesn’t lose federal funding or a seat in Congress — and there’d be no reason to fear that if they didn’t know there is a massive number of illegal immigrants in the state.

The citizenship question on the 2020 census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate CITIZENSHIP data? Wtf? — A Conservatarian. (@GrimmaceMain) March 6, 2019

"Including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public." uh, wat? — A. Pacheco (@revivin_ophelia) March 6, 2019

He actually wrote this sentence: “Including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public.” WHAT? — BKactual (@BKactualPodcast) March 6, 2019

This is the most hilarious ruling I've seen in awhile. This judge must be on some good drugs!! "Including the citizenship question on the 2020 Census is fundamentally counterproductive to the goal of obtaining accurate citizenship data about the public." Say what?!!! LOL SMH — Frances Twitty (@ftwitty1) March 6, 2019

Right?? He calls it a "citizenship question" but then… uses a completely different definition for "citizenship"?? Its a garbage legal analysis, in my humble opinion. — MarcusAurelius (@CampfireFellow) March 6, 2019

Would a Population Census be more accurate??? — Just Jenna (@JennaNeen) March 6, 2019

A population census would result in the allocation of federal resources based upon citizens + noncitizens, perhaps benefiting states with more noncitizens. Politically, the question is: do noncitizens have a right to dictate where resources go? If so, does citizenship matter? — MarcusAurelius (@CampfireFellow) March 6, 2019

I could almost cry reading the tortured logic that you can't count citizens by asking if you're a citizen. And non-citizens seem to have a right to be represented in Congress. — Mark Rosneck (@spudhorse) March 6, 2019

Reminder that The Resistance loathes the census citizenship question because it doesn’t want you to know the extent to which illegal aliens give Democrats disproportionate political power while diminishing your vote https://t.co/AC3Z1hJLoy https://t.co/bcWfEUfeM0 — Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) March 7, 2019

How many house seats flipped if you don't count illegals?

Where do they go?

That's what they fear. — Fredrick (@BuilderFredrick) March 7, 2019

More #Leftsanity from our so-called arbiters of justice.

Citizens deserve better! — Jorj X McKie (@jjs92285) March 6, 2019

Uh, the Census isn't supposed to count non-citizens. So why would the question depressing the self-response rates among non-citizens be a problem? — Fake Noose (@LetItBurnUSA) March 6, 2019

Translation: How dare you question our need for illegal voters. We're too desperate to even deny the fact that they vote anymore. — Rick (@SmallBlock55) March 6, 2019

Make it the last question. — Vilified Ostracized (@brakinggnus) March 6, 2019

I’m totally sure this won’t be overturned in the Supreme Court … pic.twitter.com/CL1Jz1OqRf — Creedmoor (@DALLASMISAR) March 6, 2019

Long story short, it goes to SCOTUS where even Ginsburg has to say this is ridiculous. — Muscles McSexington ?? (@StArminante) March 6, 2019

Activist judges legislating from the bench. On to the SCOTUS. — John White (@JJWhit2020) March 7, 2019

These stupid judges must love being overturned — R. Michael Lane (@RMichaelLane1) March 7, 2019

Going to be fun watching SCOTUS rip this ruling and judge apart — HittheDrum (@DrumHitthe) March 7, 2019

Non citizens have no right for representation in Congress and the State has no right to extra Congressmen based on Illegal Aliens. — ❌CW5⭐️⭐️⭐️ (@Cw5Star) March 6, 2019

Soooo… isn't this ruling counterproductive for even taking a census? I mean one is either a citizen or one is not. If not, deportation is necessary. We can't house the rest of the world. There HAS to be a stopping point. — Abknowrmal Clown (@AbknowrmalClown) March 6, 2019

Once again a federal judge assumes that they have sweeping jurisdiction. — mike fitz (@mpfit) March 7, 2019

Basically, a district court judge you’ve never heard of, appointed by Barack Obama, thinks he can decide national policy… — Rex (@RexRubel) March 7, 2019

Another leftist judge exercising an overreach of power and ignoring the obvious differences between American citizens and other people living in our country. — David Tafoya (@RealDavidTafoya) March 6, 2019

Another insane, activist federal judge from bankrupt California. Yawn. — Russ Kurtell (@RKurtell) March 7, 2019

I've come to the conclusion that very few people in California are sane. — ❌James Brown??? (@JamesBr68146064) March 6, 2019

So, this judge just admitted to being the dumbest judge in America? Congratulations! — Anthony Lovari ? (@ALovari9) March 7, 2019

Related: