Utah v. Evans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please discuss this issue on the talk page or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since January 2006. |
| Utah v. Evans | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||||
| Argued March 27, 2002 Decided June 20, 2002 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| Utah had standing to sue for a revision of the census results. The Bureau's use of hot-deck imputation did not violate 13 USC sec. 195. The Bureau's use of hot-deck imputation did not violate the census clause of the Constitution. | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
|||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||
| Majority by: Breyer Joined by: Rehnquist, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Concurrence by: O'Connor, Thomas Dissent by: O'Connor, Thomas |
|||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||
| 13 U.S.C. ยง 195, U.S. Cons., Art. I, section 2, clause 3 | |||||||||||
Utah v. Evans 536 U.S. 452 (2002) was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the use of certain statistical techniques in the census. In instances where the Census Bureau remained unsure of the number of residents at an address after a field visit, the Bureau inferred its population characteristics from its nearest similar neighbor, a practice called "hot-deck imputation." In the 2000 census, hot-deck imputation resulted in Utah receiving one less Representative in Congress than it would have without the practice. Utah sought an injunction requiring the Bureau to revise the census results without the use of imputation. North Carolina, which stood to lose a Representative under such an injunction, intervened in the case, disputing Utah's standing to sue. The Utah federal district court refused to grant the injunction.
Utah argued that, although the census statute allowed the Bureau to use sampling to address under-counting, hot-deck imputation did not fit the statute's concept of sampling. It further argued that imputation did not satisfy the United States Constitution's requirement of an "actual enumeration" for the purpose of apportioning Representatives. The Supreme Court rejected Utah's arguments and affirmed the district court's opinion.
This article related to a U.S. Supreme Court case is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
