b'EVERYONE COUNTS (continued)that because Secretary Rosss decision to includeMintz and LCR also hope that the brief will impact the citizenship question wasnt supported by thefuture Supreme Court cases involving the APA.reasons he provided, it was an abuse of executiveIt was very satisfying to grapple with complex power. Secretary Ross had an agenda in searchlegalissuesrelatingtotheAPAsenforcement ofajustification,Mathildasaid.Byprovidingandtocontributetodefendingsometimes appropriatejudicialreviewandenforcingtheoverlookedconstituentsfromabuse,Reena APA,thebriefasserted,thelowercourtwasadded.Opportunitieslikethisdontcome upholdingthebalanceofpowerandtherulealong often, but theyre why many of us went to of law. law school.After the Supreme Court heard the case, but before it rendered its decision, new information came to light. Documents recovered from a deceased Republicanstrategistscomputersupportedthe suspicion that the agencys decision to add the citizenship question was politically motivated.On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts decision to exclude the citizenship question from the 2020 census. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the Courts liberal block, agreed with the lower court that Rosss stated rationale was a pretext. Although Roberts agreed with the Courts conservatives that the Department of Commerce had the right to add the question, he noted that he couldnt ignore the disconnectbetweentheadministrationsaction and the reason it provided, writing, If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case. Even if the outcome hadnt turned in our favor, I would have felt very proud to have worked on the brief, Mathilda said, adding, It was the right thing to do to ensure that the rule of law was upheld.Eighteennationalnonprofitagencies joinedLCRinsigningontoitsbrief,although they could have chosen any one of approximately 40 briefs submitted to the Court.6 2019'