vox--2020-09-26--Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, has a years-long record of ruling against immigran

Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, has a years-long record of ruling against immigrants

Judge Amy Coney Barrett , President Donald Trump ’ s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court , has been an obstacle to the advancement of immigrant rights during her time on the Seventh Circuit — and if confirmed , may continue to impede immigrant rights on the Supreme Court .
Barrett has helped to advance Trump ’ s policies during her three years as a federal appellate judge .
She sided with his administration in a case over Trump ’ s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case , she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past .
She has also repeatedly refused to review cases brought by immigrants applying for humanitarian protections and other immigration benefits who claimed they had been wrongfully denied .
Some of those decisions may have negative repercussions for future such applicants ; given that they set a precedent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , these refusals could make it harder for immigrants to challenge an adverse decision from a consular officer on their visa application or obtain deportation relief from an immigration judge .
If confirmed by the Senate , as is expected , Barrett could help Trump achieve his vision of an immigration system that is primarily concerned with keeping people out , particularly those from low-income backgrounds — and one that increasingly rewards skills and wealth over family ties to the US .
( Though he has even imposed restrictions on skilled immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court has upheld some of Trump ’ s signature immigration policies , including his travel ban policy .
But it has also thwarted him at key moments : It has temporarily prevented him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , which has allowed more than 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants to live and work in the US , and blocked him from putting a citizenship question on the 2020 census , which experts said would depress response rates in immigrant communities .
In those rulings against Trump , Chief Justice John @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and cast deciding votes .
But Barrett could tip the scales in favor of conservatives on high-profile immigration cases going forward , including one challenging Trump ’ s policy to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used to redraw congressional districts in 2021 that will likely come before the justices by the end of the year .
Here are some of the key immigration decisions Barrett has issued so far : She sided with Trump on one of his key immigration policies : the public charge rule .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was her dissent in the case Cook County v. Wolf , in which the Seventh Circuit temporarily prevented the Trump administration from implementing its so-called “ public charge ” rule that created barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US .
Published last year by the Department of Homeland Security , the rule established a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US , extend their visa , or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials more leeway to turn away those who are “ likely to be a public charge ” based on an evaluation of 20 factors , ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps , Section 8 housing vouchers , and Medicaid — to English-language proficiency .
It represents one of President Trump ’ s biggest blows to legal immigration so far .
In June , a majority of the Seventh Circuit voted to strike down the rule , arguing that it “ set [ s ] a trap @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accepting benefits Congress made available to them.
” In her 40-page dissent , Barrett said she would have upheld the rule , arguing that those challenging it had set forth an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means to be a “ public charge ” that isn ’ t consistent with federal law .
“ Congress ’ s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to admit immigrants whose need for help is predictable upon arrival , ” she wrote in her dissent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month following another federal court ruling .
It has affected immigrants applying for green cards nationwide and at consulates abroad , as well as those applying for temporary visas overseas such as tourists , business travelers , students , and skilled workers .
The administration hasn ’ t released detailed data on how many people have been affected by the rule .
But Julia Gelatt , a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute , told Vox that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ five years would have had at least one negative factor under the rule — which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits .
In August 2018 , Barrett refused to review a Salvadoran citizen ’ s petition for humanitarian protection in the US , which had been dismissed by immigration judges who didn ’ t find him to be a credible witness .
Gerson Alvarenga-Flores had testified that he fled El Salvador after witnessing his friend ’ s murder at the hands of criminal gang members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was apprehended at the border and detained , he claimed that he feared returning to his home country and applied for several forms of humanitarian protection , including asylum and protections under the Convention Against Torture .
The immigration judge in his case found inconsistencies in Alvarenga ’ s testimony describing two separate incidents : He claimed that he had been attacked by gang members while in a taxi and , on another occasion , said he was approached by them on a bus .
Alvarenga explained that he gave the testimony in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speak English , which could have led to the confusion .
But the judge nevertheless concluded that his account of being targeted by gangs wasn ’ t credible , without even considering whether he would have deserved humanitarian protection .
Writing an opinion on behalf of a panel of Seventh Circuit judges , Barrett deferred to the immigration judge , agreeing that Alvarenga was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancies in his account .
“ These two encounters with gang members were crucial to Alvarenga ’ s claim that gang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he returned to El Salvador , yet he could not keep the facts straight with respect to either one , ” she wrote .
She ruled against a US citizen challenging his wife ’ s visa denial In January 2019 , Barrett refused to reconsider a case brought by a naturalized US citizen , Moshin Yafai , whose wife , Zahoor Ahmed , a citizen of Yemen , was twice denied a green card .
The consular officer had denied Ahmed ’ s green card on the grounds that she allegedly tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even though Ahmed and her husband had provided documentation to the embassy that their children had died in a drowning accident .
Writing the Seventh Circuit ’ s majority opinion , Barrett found that the consular officer nevertheless did not appear to act in bad faith and even asked for more information , “ suggest [ ing ] a desire to get it right.
” That meant her court couldn ’ t review the consular officer ’ s decision , she said .
The ruling could make it harder for visa applicants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Generally , courts can ’ t review the decisions of consular officers , who interview applicants for immigration benefits and decide whether or not to approve their visas or green cards .
There is a narrow exception in the law that allows a US citizen to challenge a consular officer ’ s decision if it infringes on one of their constitutional rights .
But it ’ s not clear whether one of those constitutional rights is to live with one ’ s spouse in the US , as Yafai had argued , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this right is uncertain , ” she wrote in the opinion .
“ Even if the denial of Ahmed ’ s visa application implicated a constitutional right of Yafai ’ s , his claim fails because the consular officer ’ s decision was facially legitimate and bona fide.
” She voted to deport a man who maintained lawful permanent residency for 30 years In June 2019 , Barrett cast the deciding vote in a Seventh Circuit case resulting in the immediate deportation of a Mexican immigrant who had been a lawful permanent resident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first arrived in the US at age 10 .
He had been convicted for drug crimes resulting in a more than 10-year prison sentence , but because his mother was a US citizen , he believed he had a right to remain in the US .
The immigrant , Ruben Lopez Ramos , was not given the chance to argue that his deportation violated his rights under the Constitution ’ s equal protection clause .
A short , one-paragraph order sealed his fate , claiming that his argument was “ irrational ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One of Barrett ’ s colleagues , dissenting , argued that Ramos should have been given his day in court , noting that , due to a now-repealed law , he would have derived US citizenship from his mother had she lived in the US prior to his birth and he could not have been deported .
Ramos argued that he was subjected to differential treatment under that law in violation of his equal protection rights .
“ He might be right , ” US Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote .
Ultimately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , the Seventh Circuit never considered the issue .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, has at times proved an obstacle to the advancement of immigrant rights during her three years on the Seventh Circuit.
As an appellate court judge, Barrett helped to advance one of Trump’s key immigration policies. She sided with his administration in a case over Trump’s policy imposing a wealth test on the millions of immigrants who seek to come to the US annually. In her whopping 40-page dissent in that case, she laid out why the US has the right to block people who it deems likely to become dependent on public assistance in the future — even if they have never used public assistance in the past.
She has also repeatedly refused to review cases brought by immigrants applying for humanitarian protections and other immigration benefits who claimed they had been wrongfully denied. Some of those decisions may have negative repercussions for future such applicants; given that they set a precedent to be followed by judges in lower courts, these refusals could make it harder for immigrants to challenge an adverse decision from a consular officer on their visa application or obtain deportation relief from an immigration judge.
But her rulings haven’t always led to adverse outcomes for immigrants. In one case, she actually prevented the Trump administration from ending a policy that allows immigration judges to indefinitely close deportation cases in which the immigrant doesn’t appear to be a priority for enforcement, giving them a chance to live in the US without fear of deportation.
With Barrett’s mixed record — and only three years of experience on the federal bench — it’s difficult to predict how she would rule on immigration cases before the Supreme Court if she is confirmed, as expected.
The Supreme Court has upheld some of Trump’s signature immigration policies, including his travel ban policy. But it has also thwarted him at key moments: It has temporarily prevented him from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which has allowed more than 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants to live and work in the US, and blocked him from putting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, which experts said would depress response rates in immigrant communities.
In those rulings against Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals and cast deciding votes. It’s not clear whether Barrett would play a similar role — or if she would tip the scales in favor of conservatives on high-profile immigration cases going forward. One such case challenging Trump’s policy to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used to redraw congressional districts in 2021 will likely come before the justices by the end of the year.
Here are some of the key immigration decisions Barrett has issued so far:
She sided with Trump on one of his key immigration policies: the public charge rule.
Perhaps Barrett’s most pivotal immigration ruling was her dissent in the case Cook County v. Wolf, in which the Seventh Circuit temporarily prevented the Trump administration from implementing its so-called “public charge” rule that created barriers to low-income immigrants seeking to enter the US.
Published last year by the Department of Homeland Security, the rule established a test to determine whether an immigrant applying to enter the US, extend their visa, or convert their temporary immigration status into a green card is likely to end up relying on public benefits in the future.
The rule has given immigration officials more leeway to turn away those who are “likely to be a public charge” based on an evaluation of 20 factors, ranging from the use of certain public benefits programs — including food stamps, Section 8 housing vouchers, and Medicaid — to English-language proficiency. It represents one of President Trump’s biggest blows to legal immigration so far.
In June, a majority of the Seventh Circuit voted to strike down the rule, arguing that it “set[s] a trap for the unwary by penalizing people for accepting benefits Congress made available to them.”
In her 40-page dissent, Barrett said she would have upheld the rule, arguing that those challenging it had set forth an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means to be a “public charge” that isn’t consistent with federal law. She also argued that the court should adopt the administration’s definition of “public charge” under the doctrine of Chevron deference, which mandates that judges defer to government agencies’ interpretation of federal law.
“Congress’s willingness to authorize funds to help immigrants who encounter unexpected trouble is perfectly consistent with its reluctance to admit immigrants whose need for help is predictable upon arrival,” she wrote in her dissent.
The rule went into effect again earlier this month following another federal court ruling. It has affected immigrants applying for green cards nationwide and at consulates abroad, as well as those applying for temporary visas overseas such as tourists, business travelers, students, and skilled workers.
The administration hasn’t released detailed data on how many people have been affected by the rule. But Julia Gelatt, a senior policy analyst at the nonpartisan think tank Migration Policy Institute, told Vox that 69 percent of the roughly 5.5 million people who were granted green cards over the past five years would have had at least one negative factor under the rule — which officials could have used as justification to reject their applications for immigration benefits.
She thwarted Trump’s attempt to end a key tool to grant relief to immigrants facing deportation
Former US Attorney Jeff Sessions had tried to revoke a little-known, but key tool that allows immigration judges to make determinations about which immigrants should be prioritized for deportation.
That tool, known as “administrative closure,” allows judges to put deportation proceedings on hold indefinitely for people who already applied for immigration benefits with another government agency. For example, it might apply to a noncitizen who overstayed their visa but is married to a US citizen who applied for a green card with US Citizenship Immigration Services on their behalf.
Sessions had tried to severely limit the circumstances under which immigration judges can administratively close a case, which had the effect of preventing people in deportation proceedings from getting the immigration benefits to which they were entitled.
But in June, Barrett argued in the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in the case Meza Morales v. Barr that Sessions’ decision to do so violated federal regulations that allow immigration judges to “take any action... that is appropriate and necessary” to complete their cases.
“[A]n immigration judge might sometimes conclude, in exercising the discretion granted by [federal regulation], that it is appropriate and necessary to dispose of a case through administrative closure,” she wrote. “Moreover, cases must be disposed of fairly, and granting a noncitizen the opportunity to pursue relief to which she is entitled may be appropriate and necessary for a fair disposition.”
She dismissed a man’s claim for humanitarian protections
In August 2018, Barrett refused to review a Salvadoran citizen’s petition for humanitarian protection in the US, which had been dismissed by immigration judges who didn’t find him to be a credible witness.
Gerson Alvarenga-Flores had testified that he fled El Salvador after witnessing his friend’s murder at the hands of criminal gang members, who consequently threatened him. After he was apprehended at the border and detained, he claimed that he feared returning to his home country and applied for several forms of humanitarian protection, including asylum and protections under the Convention Against Torture.
The immigration judge in his case found inconsistencies in Alvarenga’s testimony describing two separate incidents: He claimed that he had been attacked by gang members while in a taxi and, on another occasion, said he was approached by them on a bus. Alvarenga explained that he gave the testimony in English, even though he does not speak English, which could have led to the confusion.
But the judge nevertheless concluded that his account of being targeted by gangs wasn’t credible, without even considering whether he would have deserved humanitarian protection.
Writing an opinion on behalf of a panel of Seventh Circuit judges, Barrett deferred to the immigration judge, agreeing that Alvarenga was unable to provide an adequate explanation for the discrepancies in his account.
“These two encounters with gang members were crucial to Alvarenga’s claim that gang members were likely to torture him if he returned to El Salvador, yet he could not keep the facts straight with respect to either one,” she wrote.
She ruled against a US citizen challenging his wife’s visa denial
In January 2019, Barrett refused to reconsider a case brought by a naturalized US citizen, Moshin Yafai, whose wife, Zahoor Ahmed, a citizen of Yemen, was twice denied a green card. The consular officer had denied Ahmed’s green card on the grounds that she allegedly tried to smuggle her two children across the border, even though Ahmed and her husband had provided documentation to the embassy that their children had died in a drowning accident.
Writing the Seventh Circuit’s majority opinion, Barrett found that the consular officer nevertheless did not appear to act in bad faith and even asked for more information, “suggest[ing] a desire to get it right.” That meant her court couldn’t review the consular officer’s decision, she said.
The ruling could make it harder for visa applicants to challenge arbitrary denials down the line.
Generally, courts can’t review the decisions of consular officers, who interview applicants for immigration benefits and decide whether or not to approve their visas or green cards. There is a narrow exception in the law that allows a US citizen to challenge a consular officer’s decision if it infringes on one of their constitutional rights. But it’s not clear whether one of those constitutional rights is to live with one’s spouse in the US, as Yafai had argued, she said.
“The status of this right is uncertain,” she wrote in the opinion. “Even if the denial of Ahmed’s visa application implicated a constitutional right of Yafai’s, his claim fails because the consular officer’s decision was facially legitimate and bona fide.”
She voted to deport a man who maintained lawful permanent residency for 30 years
In June 2019, Barrett cast the deciding vote in a Seventh Circuit case resulting in the immediate deportation of a Mexican immigrant who had been a lawful permanent resident of the US for three decades and first arrived in the US at age 10. He had been convicted for drug crimes resulting in a more than 10-year prison sentence, but because his mother was a US citizen, he believed he had a right to remain in the US.
The immigrant, Ruben Lopez Ramos, was not given the chance to argue that his deportation violated his rights under the Constitution’s equal protection clause. A short, one-paragraph order sealed his fate, claiming that his argument was “irrational” and had “little chance of succeeding.”
One of Barrett’s colleagues, dissenting, argued that Ramos should have been given his day in court, noting that, due to a now-repealed law, he would have derived US citizenship from his mother had she lived in the US prior to his birth and he could not have been deported. Ramos argued that he was subjected to differential treatment under that law in violation of his equal protection rights.
“He might be right,” US Circuit Judge David Hamilton wrote. Ultimately, however, due to Barrett’s vote, the Seventh Circuit never considered the issue.


vox--2020-09-26--Who is Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court?

President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett , whom he previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit , to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg .
Barrett is a staunch Catholic , a favorite of the religious right , and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia .
Her judicial record is fairly thin , owing to the fact that she ’ s only been a judge for about three years , but that short record suggests she ’ ll be a reliable conservative if confirmed to the Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revealing opinions , Barrett took an expansive view of the Second Amendment — dissenting to the right of two colleagues who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan .
Before joining the federal bench , Barrett was a law professor at the University of Notre Dame , and she frequently weighed in on many of the cultural fights that animate religious conservatism .
In a 2013 speech on Roe v. Wade , Barrett reportedly stated that life begins at conception — a common view among abortion opponents .
She signed a 2012 statement claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health plans to cover contraception was “ a grave violation of religious freedom and can not stand.
” She also signed a 2015 statement to Catholic bishops endorsing the church ’ s conservative views on abortion , sexuality , and marriage .
And in a 2017 book review , Barrett seemed to criticize two Supreme Court decisions that largely upheld Obamacare against partisan attacks — suggesting that she is likely to vote to undercut the Affordable Care Act and potentially strip health care from millions of Americans in the process .
Barrett ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump appointee to the federal bench .
And her professional credentials , while impressive , are shared by many other sitting judges .
It ’ s likely that she rose to the top of Trump ’ s Supreme Court shortlist not because her record sets her apart from a dozen or more staunch conservatives on the federal bench , but because of an effort by Democrats to impugn Barrett ’ s fitness for the bench when she was originally nominated to the Seventh Circuit .
That botched effort allowed religious conservatives to paint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means that Trump ’ s choice of Barrett could double as an attempt to stoke resentment among Christian conservative voters shortly before the election .
Barrett is a devout Catholic , and she often grounds her conservative political views in her faith .
She even co-authored a 1998 law review article exploring how Catholic judges should behave when the law ’ s demands come into conflict with their religious beliefs .
That somewhat dated law review article played a starring role in opposition research memos and other documents circulated by liberal groups opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the federal bench .
Many of these groups feared that , if confirmed , Judge Barrett would place her personal opposition to abortion ahead of her judicial obligation to follow Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade .
It is fair game to criticize a nominee for their political beliefs , including their opposition to abortion .
And it is fair game to criticize someone for political beliefs that are inspired by their religious faith .
But , in a disastrous exchange with the future Judge Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeared to go a step further — seeming to attack Barrett ’ s Catholicism itself .
In the coming weeks , expect to see a short clip from Barrett ’ s 2017 confirmation hearing over and over again .
During Barrett ’ s 2017 hearing , Feinstein , the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee , drew a distinction between “ law ” and religious “ dogma , ” and accused Barrett of applying the latter when she should apply the former .
“ The dogma lives loudly within you , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a concern.
” It was a unusually tone-deaf remark , and it helped transform the obscure law-professor-turned-judge into a celebrity among the Christian right .
Feinstein , meanwhile , was cast as something akin to a tyrannical emperor tossing innocent Christians to the lions .
“ The notion that Catholics are so beholden to Rome as to be incapable of rendering independent judgment in public office has a long , sordid history , ” wrote the Catholic conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in a New York Times op-ed attacking Feinstein .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appears to be an article , titled “ Catholic Judges in Capital Cases , ” which Barrett co-authored with law professor John H. Garvey in 1998 ( Garvey is now the president of Catholic University ) .
In that article , published shortly after Barrett graduated from law school , she and Garvey suggested Catholic judges may have to recuse themselves from death penalty cases when their religious convictions against the death penalty conflict with their judicial obligation to enforce laws that provide for capital punishment .
The article also mentions the Catholic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to abortion .
Many of Barrett ’ s opponents characterized this 22-year-old article as evidence that she would place the teachings of the Catholic Church ahead of her obligation to follow the law .
As one liberal group claimed , Barrett “ wrote specifically about the duty of judges to put their faith above the law.
” The often-explicit fear underlying statements such as this was that Barrett would undermine the right to an abortion if confirmed to the bench .
Had Feinstein merely expressed concerns about Barrett ’ s views on abortion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not have become such a celebrity among Christian conservatives .
But by blurring the line between a legitimate attack on Barrett ’ s political views and an illegitimate attack on her Catholic faith , Feinstein transformed Barrett into a hero for the religious right .
Barrett has very conservative views on issues like abortion or LBGTQ rights Barrett often expresses conservative political opinions in explicitly religious terms .
In 2015 , for example , she signed a letter to Catholic bishops that endorsed many of the church ’ s conservative teachings on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that letter : This letter ’ s reference to “ the value of human life from conception to natural death ” leaves little doubt that Barrett personally opposes abortion .
And its statements regarding “ the complementarity of men and women ” and “ marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman ” suggest that Barrett personally opposes marriage equality — and potentially opposes extending other rights to LGBTQ people .
To be sure , that Barrett personally opposes certain rights does not necessarily ensure she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confirmed to the Supreme Court .
Justice William Brennan , for example , was a liberal icon who played a significant role in shaping the Court ’ s abortion rights decision in Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) .
Yet he once told a biographer that he “ wouldn ’ t under any circumstances condone an abortion in my private life.
” But Barrett ’ s limited judicial record suggests her approach to constitutional interpretation aligns with her conservative political views .
In Planned Parenthood v. Box ( 2019 ) , Barrett joined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should rehear a case that blocked an anti-abortion law before that law took effect .
That opinion argued that “ preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure ” — suggesting that Barrett would have prevented her court from blocking the anti-abortion law at the heart of that case if given the chance .
Meanwhile , in Price v. City of Chicago ( 2019 ) , Barrett joined a decision that reluctantly upheld a Chicago ordinance barring anti-abortion protesters from “ approaching within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vicinity of an abortion clinic if their purpose is to engage in counseling , education , leafletting , handbilling , or protest.
” The idea behind this ordinance is to prevent protesters from harassing patients entering abortion clinics .
Though the opinion in Price acknowledged that the Chicago ordinance is “ nearly identical ” to one that was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) , and thus must be upheld by a lower court , the Price opinion argued at length that Hill “ is incompatible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barrett be confirmed to the Supreme Court , she would no longer be bound in the same way that lower court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent .
And thus she would be free to vote to overrule decisions like Hill — or even Roe .
Barrett is likely to vote to undercut Obamacare In 2017 , Barrett wrote a lengthy review of Our Republican Constitution , a deeply radical book by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett , which argues that huge swaths of American law are unconstitutional and should be struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Barrett largely rejected Barnett ’ s proposal to turn much of American governance over to heavy-handed judges .
While Barnett “ offers a fulsome explanation of why we should mistrust legislatures , ” the future Supreme Court nominee wrote , “ he spends less time defending the institutional capacity of the courts.
” Toward the end of her review , however , Barrett does single out two cases — NFIB v. Sebelius ( 2012 ) and King v. Burwell ( 2015 ) — and suggests the courts should have taken a more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NFIB and King largely rejected partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act .
In NFIB , Judge Barrett writes , “ Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.
” Likewise , Barrett appears to endorse Justice Scalia ’ s dissenting opinion in King , which attacks the majority for its supposed willingness to “ rewrite ” Obamacare in order to save it .
“ For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text , the measure of a court is its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , which means going where the law leads , ” Barrett writes .
“ By this measure , it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.
” Many fair-minded lawyers — including the six justices who joined the majority in King — would no doubt take issue with Barrett ’ s suggestion that King distorted the text of Obamacare .
But if Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court , it won ’ t really matter what those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice , she ’ ll be free to vote against Obamacare even if her reading of the statute is idiosyncratic .
Barrett is unlikely to follow past decisions upholding Obamacare simply out of loyalty to precedent .
In a 2013 article , she suggested that justices should not feel bound by precedents that they strongly disagree with .
“ I tend to agree with those who say that a justice ’ s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly in conflict with it , ” Barrett wrote in that piece .
Thus , if Barrett concludes that a decision like NFIB is “ clearly ” in conflict with the Constitution , she is likely to ignore it .
Barrett is likely to expand the Second Amendment significantly Four members of the current Court — Justices Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , and Brett Kavanaugh — have all called for their Court to take a more expansive approach to the Second Amendment .
If confirmed , Barrett is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ project .
In Kanter v. Barr ( 2019 ) , Barrett sat on a three-judge panel considering a case brought by a former felon who claimed he had a Second Amendment right to own a gun , despite his felony conviction .
Notably , both of the other judges on this panel were Reagan appointees .
The two Reagan appointees joined an opinion by Judge Joel Flaum arguing that the plaintiff in Kanter , who ’ d previously been convicted of mail fraud , was not exempt from the general rule barring ex-felons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opinion pointed to the Supreme Court ’ s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller ( 2008 ) , which held that “ nothing in [ the Supreme Court ’ s ] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. ” Barrett dissented .
The crux of her argument is that “ longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons ” should be shrunk to only “ prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.
” Thus , a person convicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would most likely be allowed to own a gun .
As the two judges in the majority noted , “ several courts of appeals have concluded that nonviolent felons are outside the scope of the Second Amendment.
” And those two judges are , themselves , right-leaning judges appointed by a conservative president .
So Barrett ’ s approach to the Second Amendment appears to place her well to the right of the consensus within the judiciary .
If Barrett is confirmed , however , that consensus will no longer matter .
She @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judiciary .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump will nominate Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom he previously appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Barrett is a staunch Catholic, a favorite of the religious right, and a former law clerk to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Her judicial record is fairly thin, owing to the fact that she’s only been a judge for about three years, but that short record suggests she’ll be a reliable conservative if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
In one of her most revealing opinions, Barrett took an expansive view of the Second Amendment — dissenting to the right of two colleagues who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
Before joining the federal bench, Barrett was a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, and she frequently weighed in on many of the cultural fights that animate religious conservatism.
In a 2013 speech on Roe v. Wade, Barrett reportedly stated that life begins at conception — a common view among abortion opponents. She signed a 2012 statement claiming that an Obama administration policy requiring employee health plans to cover contraception was “a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand.” She also signed a 2015 statement to Catholic bishops endorsing the church’s conservative views on abortion, sexuality, and marriage.
And in a 2017 book review, Barrett seemed to criticize two Supreme Court decisions that largely upheld Obamacare against partisan attacks — suggesting that she is likely to vote to undercut the Affordable Care Act and potentially strip health care from millions of Americans in the process.
Barrett’s views are hardly atypical of a Trump appointee to the federal bench. And her professional credentials, while impressive, are shared by many other sitting judges. It’s likely that she rose to the top of Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist not because her record sets her apart from a dozen or more staunch conservatives on the federal bench, but because of an effort by Democrats to impugn Barrett’s fitness for the bench when she was originally nominated to the Seventh Circuit.
That botched effort allowed religious conservatives to paint Barrett as a persecuted martyr, and means that Trump’s choice of Barrett could double as an attempt to stoke resentment among Christian conservative voters shortly before the election.
Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing was a disaster for Democrats
Barrett is a devout Catholic, and she often grounds her conservative political views in her faith. She even co-authored a 1998 law review article exploring how Catholic judges should behave when the law’s demands come into conflict with their religious beliefs.
That somewhat dated law review article played a starring role in opposition research memos and other documents circulated by liberal groups opposed to Barrett’s 2017 nomination to the federal bench. Many of these groups feared that, if confirmed, Judge Barrett would place her personal opposition to abortion ahead of her judicial obligation to follow Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v. Wade.
It is fair game to criticize a nominee for their political beliefs, including their opposition to abortion. And it is fair game to criticize someone for political beliefs that are inspired by their religious faith. But, in a disastrous exchange with the future Judge Barrett during her 2017 confirmation hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared to go a step further — seeming to attack Barrett’s Catholicism itself.
In the coming weeks, expect to see a short clip from Barrett’s 2017 confirmation hearing over and over again.
During Barrett’s 2017 hearing, Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, drew a distinction between “law” and religious “dogma,” and accused Barrett of applying the latter when she should apply the former. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein told Barrett, “and that’s a concern.”
It was a unusually tone-deaf remark, and it helped transform the obscure law-professor-turned-judge into a celebrity among the Christian right.
Feinstein, meanwhile, was cast as something akin to a tyrannical emperor tossing innocent Christians to the lions. “The notion that Catholics are so beholden to Rome as to be incapable of rendering independent judgment in public office has a long, sordid history,” wrote the Catholic conservative writer Sohrab Ahmari in a New York Times op-ed attacking Feinstein.
The origin of the “dogma” debacle appears to be an article, titled “Catholic Judges in Capital Cases,” which Barrett co-authored with law professor John H. Garvey in 1998 (Garvey is now the president of Catholic University). In that article, published shortly after Barrett graduated from law school, she and Garvey suggested Catholic judges may have to recuse themselves from death penalty cases when their religious convictions against the death penalty conflict with their judicial obligation to enforce laws that provide for capital punishment.
The article also mentions the Catholic Church’s “absolute” opposition to abortion.
Many of Barrett’s opponents characterized this 22-year-old article as evidence that she would place the teachings of the Catholic Church ahead of her obligation to follow the law. As one liberal group claimed, Barrett “wrote specifically about the duty of judges to put their faith above the law.” The often-explicit fear underlying statements such as this was that Barrett would undermine the right to an abortion if confirmed to the bench.
Had Feinstein merely expressed concerns about Barrett’s views on abortion, perhaps the future Supreme Court nominee would not have become such a celebrity among Christian conservatives. But by blurring the line between a legitimate attack on Barrett’s political views and an illegitimate attack on her Catholic faith, Feinstein transformed Barrett into a hero for the religious right.
Barrett has very conservative views on issues like abortion or LBGTQ rights
Barrett often expresses conservative political opinions in explicitly religious terms. In 2015, for example, she signed a letter to Catholic bishops that endorsed many of the church’s conservative teachings on abortion and sexuality.
In the words of that letter:
We give witness that the Church’s teachings—on the dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death; on the meaning of human sexuality, the significance of sexual difference and the complementarity of men and women; on openness to life and the gift of motherhood; and on marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman—provide a sure guide to the Christian life, promote women’s flourishing, and serve to protect the poor and most vulnerable among us.
This letter’s reference to “the value of human life from conception to natural death” leaves little doubt that Barrett personally opposes abortion. And its statements regarding “the complementarity of men and women” and “marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman” suggest that Barrett personally opposes marriage equality — and potentially opposes extending other rights to LGBTQ people.
To be sure, that Barrett personally opposes certain rights does not necessarily ensure she will vote to undermine those rights if confirmed to the Supreme Court. Justice William Brennan, for example, was a liberal icon who played a significant role in shaping the Court’s abortion rights decision in Roe v. Wade (1973). Yet he once told a biographer that he “wouldn’t under any circumstances condone an abortion in my private life.”
But Barrett’s limited judicial record suggests her approach to constitutional interpretation aligns with her conservative political views. In Planned Parenthood v. Box (2019), Barrett joined a brief dissent arguing that her court should rehear a case that blocked an anti-abortion law before that law took effect. That opinion argued that “preventing a state statute from taking effect is a judicial act of extraordinary gravity in our federal structure” — suggesting that Barrett would have prevented her court from blocking the anti-abortion law at the heart of that case if given the chance.
Meanwhile, in Price v. City of Chicago (2019), Barrett joined a decision that reluctantly upheld a Chicago ordinance barring anti-abortion protesters from “approaching within eight feet of a person in the vicinity of an abortion clinic if their purpose is to engage in counseling, education, leafletting, handbilling, or protest.” The idea behind this ordinance is to prevent protesters from harassing patients entering abortion clinics.
Though the opinion in Price acknowledged that the Chicago ordinance is “nearly identical” to one that was previously upheld by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado (2000), and thus must be upheld by a lower court, the Price opinion argued at length that Hill “is incompatible with current First Amendment doctrine.”
Should Barrett be confirmed to the Supreme Court, she would no longer be bound in the same way that lower court judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent. And thus she would be free to vote to overrule decisions like Hill — or even Roe.
Barrett is likely to vote to undercut Obamacare
In 2017, Barrett wrote a lengthy review of Our Republican Constitution, a deeply radical book by libertarian law professor Randy Barnett, which argues that huge swaths of American law are unconstitutional and should be struck down by judges.
To her credit, Barrett largely rejected Barnett’s proposal to turn much of American governance over to heavy-handed judges. While Barnett “offers a fulsome explanation of why we should mistrust legislatures,” the future Supreme Court nominee wrote, “he spends less time defending the institutional capacity of the courts.”
Toward the end of her review, however, Barrett does single out two cases — NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) and King v. Burwell (2015) — and suggests the courts should have taken a more aggressive approach in those decisions. Both NFIB and King largely rejected partisan attacks on the Affordable Care Act.
In NFIB, Judge Barrett writes, “Chief Justice Roberts pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.” Likewise, Barrett appears to endorse Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in King, which attacks the majority for its supposed willingness to “rewrite” Obamacare in order to save it.
“For Justice Scalia and those who share his commitment to uphold text, the measure of a court is its fair minded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads,” Barrett writes. “By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.”
Many fair-minded lawyers — including the six justices who joined the majority in King — would no doubt take issue with Barrett’s suggestion that King distorted the text of Obamacare. But if Barrett is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it won’t really matter what those lawyers think. If Barrett is a justice, she’ll be free to vote against Obamacare even if her reading of the statute is idiosyncratic.
Barrett is unlikely to follow past decisions upholding Obamacare simply out of loyalty to precedent. In a 2013 article, she suggested that justices should not feel bound by precedents that they strongly disagree with.
“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that it is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it,” Barrett wrote in that piece. Thus, if Barrett concludes that a decision like NFIB is “clearly” in conflict with the Constitution, she is likely to ignore it.
Barrett is likely to expand the Second Amendment significantly
Four members of the current Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — have all called for their Court to take a more expansive approach to the Second Amendment. If confirmed, Barrett is likely to provide the fifth vote for this project.
In Kanter v. Barr (2019), Barrett sat on a three-judge panel considering a case brought by a former felon who claimed he had a Second Amendment right to own a gun, despite his felony conviction. Notably, both of the other judges on this panel were Reagan appointees.
The two Reagan appointees joined an opinion by Judge Joel Flaum arguing that the plaintiff in Kanter, who’d previously been convicted of mail fraud, was not exempt from the general rule barring ex-felons from carrying firearms. Flaum’s opinion pointed to the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which held that “nothing in [the Supreme Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
Barrett dissented. The crux of her argument is that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” should be shrunk to only “prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns.” Thus, a person convicted of a nonviolent crime like mail fraud would most likely be allowed to own a gun.
As the two judges in the majority noted, “several courts of appeals have concluded that nonviolent felons are outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” And those two judges are, themselves, right-leaning judges appointed by a conservative president. So Barrett’s approach to the Second Amendment appears to place her well to the right of the consensus within the judiciary.
If Barrett is confirmed, however, that consensus will no longer matter. She will sit at the apex of the judiciary.


vox--2020-09-26--How the pandemic is bringing Elon Musk’s dream to connect everyone on Earth closer to reality

In vast swaths of the United States and the world , there are millions of people who don ’ t have reliable internet access .
These unconnected people aren ’ t just in far-flung places like rural America or New Zealand or sub-Saharan Africa , either .
There are plenty of people living in dense city centers who struggle to access affordable broadband .
The pandemic has brought new urgency to the problem , and while companies like Google and Facebook have floated far-out ideas for solving this problem , the internet technology that ’ s most promising is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : satellite broadband .
In early March , just days before cities across the United States shut down due to the Covid-19 pandemic , Elon Musk shared the latest details about his plan to build a satellite broadband service called Starlink .
Speaking to an audience at a satellite conference in Washington , DC , Musk described how a constellation of Starlink satellites will “ blink ” when they enter low-Earth orbit .
As described , they almost sound like streaks of glitter in the night sky , or magic bands of flying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anyone on the planet .
Combined with improvements to existing technology like DSL , cable , and fiber — not to mention 4G and 5G cellular networks — futuristic satellite broadband stands to bridge the digital divide in the US and elsewhere .
And because the pandemic has prompted explosive demand for better , more widely available internet connectivity , fast progress seems more inevitable than ever .
Musk ’ s new satellites went online in early September , giving beta testers download speeds that rival those of terrestrial broadband .
SpaceX has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past 16 months and has plans to deliver as many as 30,000 more in the next few years .
More satellites mean more bandwidth and faster speeds , and eventually , SpaceX says its low-Earth orbit satellite constellations could deliver high-speed internet to the entire US .
Amazon , Facebook , and several startups have made similar promises in recent years .
The concept of satellite-based internet service is actually decades old .
However , the innovative low-Earth orbit satellite technology being developed by SpaceX and others could be essential , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telemedicine to remote learning in places that aren ’ t already connected .
Satellite broadband could also be very profitable for whichever company figures it out first .
One could imagine Amazon using satellite broadband to boost its Amazon Web Services ( AWS ) business , or Facebook using it to ensure that more people get online and look at Facebook .
And if Musk gets his way , his Starlink constellations will generate billions of dollars in profits to fund his mission to colonize Mars .
This all sounds futuristic , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing .
In fact , if you ’ ve ever connected to the wifi on a plane or cruise ship , you ’ ve probably used it .
The basic idea is that ground stations connected to the internet , known as gateways , can send data up to a satellite which then relays that data to antennas somewhere else on the ground — or on a ship or an airplane .
The problem with this technological feat is that it ’ s all very expensive .
It can cost hundreds of millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and that ’ s not even taking into account what it takes to get over regulatory hurdles .
Plenty of companies have tried and failed to crack the business model in the past 20 years , but rather suddenly , the space internet game has changed .
“ The Covid-19 crisis has significantly accelerated attention to and investment in satellite technology , ” Babak Beheshti , dean of the College of Engineering and Computing Sciences at the New York Institute of Technology , told Recode .
Beheshti added the number of launches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to this year .
“ Why ?
Because schools , local governments , and others suddenly needed to have broadband internet access in areas where there was really no infrastructure in place.
” This might sound like proof that satellite broadband is finally on its way to solving the digital divide , but the situation remains incredibly tenuous .
As SpaceX started firing up its Starlink satellites , Amazon in July received approval from the Federal Communications Commission to launch 3,236 low-Earth orbit satellites for a constellation of its own called Project Kuiper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders like Viasat can ’ t seem to get new satellites into the sky fast enough to keep up with demand .
And along the way , the federal government is pledging billions of dollars in subsidies to companies that bring broadband to rural America .
In some ways , the dream of connecting everyone on Earth has never been closer .
In other ways , it ’ s hard to tell if the latest innovative ideas will suffer the same pitfalls as those of years past .
Satellite broadband is exactly what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delivered via satellite .
The basic idea hasn ’ t changed much since the heyday of satellite TV in the late ’ 90s , when companies would beam internet connectivity to the same dish that received your HBO signal at speeds that were faster than dial-up but still slower than today ’ s broadband .
In 2020 , there are two main ways companies deliver satellite broadband .
The key difference between them is how high the satellites orbit .
Geosynchronous satellites , which orbit about 22,000 miles above a fixed place on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ older technology that companies like Viasat use for broadband connections .
You ’ ve probably used this tech for airplane wifi .
Then there are low-Earth orbit constellations , which are made up of hundreds , if not thousands , of smaller satellites that orbit between 300 and 1,200 miles above the earth .
This is the approach that ’ s getting all of the buzz lately , and the one that SpaceX and Amazon are taking .
Geosynchronous satellites are the more mature , more proven technology .
Viasat and a company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parent company of DirecTV , have been around for decades .
( DirecTV actually used its dishes and infrastructure to offer a satellite internet service called DirecPC back in the late ’ 90s . )
Viasat and Hughes are also the two companies that most likely offer satellite broadband in remote parts of the US right now .
If you ’ re someone who lives in the New Hampshire wilderness , where there are no terrestrial broadband options , you can get a version of DSL , which operates on existing copper telephone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sluggish as dial-up .
Or , you can sign up for geosynchronous satellite broadband through Viasat or Hughes and get speeds comparable to basic broadband : about 25 megabits-per-second .
Plans start at $ 40 to $ 50 a month and get more expensive if you want more bandwidth .
Though they are dependable , these geosynchronous satellite systems have some issues .
The main one is latency .
The satellites are thousands of miles above Earth ’ s surface , so it takes time for data to travel — and that might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receiving .
This isn ’ t a problem if you ’ re just browsing the web .
It ’ s a significant problem if you ’ re trying to stream video games or do video calls , something we ’ re all doing more than ever before .
Just think about remote TV news correspondents who have to wait half a beat between when the anchor in the studio asks the question and when they hear it in their earpiece , as the signal travels up to a communications satellite and then back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constellations , like the ones SpaceX and Amazon are building , promise to solve the latency problem .
Because the satellites are closer to the ground , the data doesn ’ t have to travel as far .
Musk says this means SpaceX ’ s Starlink satellites , which will orbit at around 340 miles above the surface , will offer high latency , thus reducing the risk of lag .
The latency question is a big deal to the FCC and its decision to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will prioritize networks that offer low latency when giving out funding .
Still , there are other unanswered questions about just how fast and dependable newly designed low-Earth orbit constellations will be .
Unlike geosynchronous satellites , which are fixed above one spot , low-Earth orbit satellites circle the planet every 90 to 120 minutes .
They ’ re designed to stay connected to the ground station and to the end user by staying connected to each other , but if this chain gets broken , it would disrupt the connection .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousands of relatively small satellites — Starlink satellites weigh less than 600 pounds — which means they require multiple launches , which are expensive .
“ As more satellites go up , they optimize the network architecture , ” explained Manny Shar , head of analytics at Bryce Space and Technology .
“ In the next couple of years , we should see decent improvements in rural areas where there ’ s really limited capability , and there ’ s limited competition to improve that .
So at the very least , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rural users can take advantage of.
” Shar ’ s point about limited competition is an important one .
Many parts of the United States , for instance , have access to slower DSL connections thanks to telephone lines , but because upgrading that infrastructure is so expensive , the telecom companies that serve those areas often have little incentive to do so .
That leaves residents depending on a mix of poor wired connections and often spotty cellular networks .
New technology like 5G could ostensibly bring faster cellular speeds to remote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure takes time and money .
Satellite broadband , meanwhile , can beam fast , reliable , and potentially affordable internet access down to nearly anywhere on Earth .
This also requires time and money , but what we ’ re seeing in 2020 is that the pandemic is attracting all kinds of investment in the technology , which means more satellites are launching .
Both geosynchronous and low-Earth orbit satellite broadband systems have pros and cons .
The former is already viable , albeit not perfect .
The latter holds promise , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to that goal of connecting more people , it will all come down to money .
The future of satellite-based broadband largely depends on who can get the most bandwidth into space for the least amount of money .
Each individual satellite , by design , can offer a limited amount of bandwidth , so companies are either making lots of satellites to launch at once — this is what SpaceX is doing — or they ’ re investing technological improvements and launching new satellites every few years .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company plans to launch a new satellite called Viasat 3 next year that ’ s expected to vastly improve its network .
This satellite and others like it weigh tens of thousands of pounds , so these launches are expensive .
So one could see the appeal of launching lots of smaller satellites over time , especially if you ’ re a company like SpaceX and own your own rockets .
Amazon and its Project Kuiper , similarly , have the benefit of being owned by Jeff Bezos , who also owns the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s so far unclear how Blue Origin might factor into Project Kuiper , however .
In fact , Amazon has revealed very little about the project other than it plans to offer affordable high speed , low-latency internet service through low-Earth orbit satellites .
“ There are still too many places where broadband access is unreliable or where it doesn ’ t exist at all , ” Amazon senior vice president Dave Limp said in a statement following the FCC ’ s approval of the first Project Kuiper launch .
“ Our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and infrastructure around the United States that will help us close this gap.
” It ’ s worth pointing out a difficult truth here .
Selling affordable satellite broadband to individual customers in rural areas will not generate enough revenue to send the needed satellites to space .
Again , each launch costs hundreds of millions of dollars , and selling service for $ 40 a month to individual households can ’ t cover the startup costs .
And even then , not everyone who needs internet access can afford that .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the dream of offering satellite-based internet service to anybody on Earth — or any other kind of reliable , high-speed internet service — has been so elusive .
This is also why companies that have been successful at building satellite broadband networks have approached the challenge from different angles .
Viasat , for instance , spent years building out an enterprise business , selling bandwidth to the military and governments , not to mention helping you get wifi on airplanes .
Now , the company says demand from the consumer market has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploded since the pandemic hit .
And that demand isn ’ t necessarily coming from the most remote areas .
“ It turns out that a lot of the demand tends to be around the major metro areas , ” said Viasat CEO Mark Dankberg .
“ In the highest demand markets — in the Midwest , in the Southeast — we ’ ve been out of bandwidth for two years .
So we can ’ t have that many more customers until we get our next satellite.
” Dankberg added Viasat is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ existing geosynchronous satellites with its own low-Earth orbit satellites , as well as cellular networks , for faster , lower latency connections .
As Recode ’ s Emily Stewart recently explained , broadband access isn ’ t just a problem in rural Montana .
Even in city centers and suburbs , the infrastructure to offer high-speed internet access either doesn ’ t exist or is too expensive for many people to afford .
This means that new options , including space internet , could stand to connect millions of Americans more quickly than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infrastructure .
That doesn ’ t make providing access to those in far-flung regions any less of a priority , and government subsidy programs are helping to make this happen , albeit slowly .
Coincidentally , just as the pandemic pushed the country into lockdown , the FCC launched its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund , which will provide up to $ 16 billion to telecom companies that expand internet access in rural areas .
SpaceX has applied for funding , although it must prove its service offers the low latency and high speeds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money .
Viasat received $ 87.1 million in funding from a similar FCC program last year .
Again , in the absence of government funding , companies like SpaceX and Amazon are in a unique position to take the lead in the satellite broadband industry because building such an infrastructure will come in handy for other reasons .
SpaceX is in a unique position to deliver its satellites into low-Earth orbit .
The benefit of Amazon owning its own satellite broadband network also seems apparent .
When it goes online , Project Kuiper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s AWS business .
“ Amazon is essentially , effectively going to be its own biggest customer to really prime the pump for the revenue stream , ” said Beheshti , who is also a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers .
“ And then , obviously , the additional revenue streams would come from the residential individual consumers.
” The benefits of satellite-based internet services have been obvious for years .
However , for years , companies have struggled to make those ambitions meet reality .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying — and trying creative approaches , too .
Alphabet continues to pursue a project called Loon , which started out as a Google experiment about 10 years ago .
Loon involves using high-altitude balloons that beam internet access down to rural areas .
After being deployed in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria , a fleet of Loon balloons started delivering service to millions of people in Kenya in July , marking the first commercial application of the technology .
Meanwhile , Facebook has had its own far-fetched plans .
Its initiative called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet suffered a big setback in 2016 , when a SpaceX rocket carrying a satellite designed to deliver internet access to sub-Saharan Africa exploded on the launch pad .
There was also Project Aquila , which involved sending solar-powered drones 60,000 feet into the atmosphere to connect rural areas .
The company abandoned the project in 2018 .
Big internet companies like Facebook and Google have also faced backlash for their lofty connectivity projects .
While projects like Loon and Internet.org are billed as charitable initiatives to serve the public good , critics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of net neutrality and serve the companies ’ best interest , rather than the public ’ s .
After all , a free or low-cost internet service from Facebook or Google could simply steer billions of people to Facebook and Google ’ s products and services , Balkanizing the internet as we know it .
With all of these efforts , there are bound to be more failures , and possibly more backlash , in the future .
Elon Musk ’ s goal of offering high-speed broadband to everyone on Earth is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a thing is technically possible .
It ’ s expensive , and plenty of smart people are figuring out how to pay for it , while other promising tech , like 5G , continues to roll out .
But if anything would motivate such a tremendous disruption in the internet service business , the pandemic should do it .
Never before have we depended so much on connectivity .
We might just have to leave planet Earth to get it .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

In vast swaths of the United States and the world, there are millions of people who don’t have reliable internet access. These unconnected people aren’t just in far-flung places like rural America or New Zealand or sub-Saharan Africa, either. There are plenty of people living in dense city centers with limited access to affordable broadband. The Covid-19 pandemic has brought new urgency to the challenge of getting everyone connected, and while companies like Google and Facebook have floated far-out ideas for solving the problem, the internet technology that’s most promising is also one that’s already proven: satellite broadband.
In early March, just days before cities across the US shut down due to the pandemic, Elon Musk shared the latest details about his plan to build a satellite broadband service called Starlink. Speaking at a satellite conference in Washington, DC, Musk described how a constellation of Starlink satellites will “blink” when they enter low-Earth orbit. As described, they almost sound like streaks of glitter in the night sky, or magic bands of flying gadgets that can beam internet down to anyone on the planet.
Combined with improvements to existing technology like DSL, cable, and fiber — not to mention 4G and 5G cellular networks — futuristic satellite broadband stands to bridge the digital divide in the US and elsewhere. And because the pandemic has prompted explosive demand for better, more widely available internet connectivity, fast progress seems more inevitable than ever.
Musk’s new satellites went online in early September, giving beta testers download speeds that rival those of terrestrial broadband. SpaceX has now put 700 Starlink satellites into orbit in the past 16 months and has plans to deliver as many as 30,000 more in the next few years. More satellites mean more bandwidth and faster speeds, and eventually, SpaceX says, its low-Earth orbit satellite constellations could deliver high-speed internet to the entire US. Amazon, Facebook, and several startups have made similar promises in recent years.
The concept of satellite-based internet service is actually decades old. However, the innovative low-Earth orbit satellite technology being developed by SpaceX and others could be essential, if not transformative, for everything from telemedicine to remote learning in places that aren’t already connected.
Satellite broadband could also be very profitable for whichever company figures it out first. One could imagine Amazon using satellite broadband to boost its Amazon Web Services (AWS) business, or Facebook using it to ensure that more people get on its platform. And if Musk gets his way, his Starlink constellations will generate billions of dollars in profits to fund his mission to colonize Mars.
This all sounds futuristic, but satellite broadband is already a very real thing. In fact, if you’ve ever connected to wifi on a plane or cruise ship, you’ve probably used it. The basic idea is that ground stations connected to the internet, known as gateways, can send data up to a satellite which then relays that data to antennas somewhere else on the ground — or on a ship or an airplane.
The problem with this technological feat is that it’s all very expensive. It can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to launch satellites into space, and that’s not even taking into account what it takes to get over regulatory hurdles. Plenty of companies have tried and failed to crack the business model in the past 20 years. But rather suddenly, the space internet game has changed.
“The Covid-19 crisis has significantly accelerated attention to and investment in satellite technology,” Babak Beheshti, dean of the College of Engineering and Computing Sciences at the New York Institute of Technology, told Recode. Beheshti added that the number of launches had gone up tenfold from last year to this year. “Why? Because schools, local governments, and others suddenly needed to have broadband internet access in areas where there was really no infrastructure in place.”
This might sound like proof that satellite broadband is finally on its way to solving the digital divide, but the situation remains tenuous. As SpaceX started firing up its Starlink satellites, Amazon in July received approval from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to launch 3,236 low-Earth orbit satellites for a constellation of its own called Project Kuiper. Meanwhile, longtime satellite broadband industry leaders like Viasat can’t seem to get new satellites into the sky fast enough to keep up with demand. And along the way, the federal government is pledging billions of dollars in subsidies to companies that bring broadband to rural America.
In some ways, the dream of connecting everyone on Earth has never been closer. In other ways, it’s hard to tell whether the latest innovative ideas will suffer the same pitfalls as those of years past.
Satellite broadband, briefly explained
Satellite broadband is exactly what it sounds like: broadband internet access delivered via satellite. The basic idea hasn’t changed much since the heyday of satellite TV in the late ’90s when companies would beam internet connectivity to the same dish that received your HBO signal at speeds that were faster than dial-up but still slower than today’s broadband.
In 2020, there are two main ways companies deliver satellite broadband. The key difference between them is how high the satellites orbit. Geosynchronous satellites, which orbit about 22,000 miles above a fixed place on Earth’s surface, is an older technology that companies like Viasat use for broadband connections. You’ve probably used this tech for airplane wifi.
Then there are low-Earth orbit constellations, which are made up of hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller satellites that orbit between 300 and 1,200 miles above Earth. This is the approach that’s getting all of the buzz lately, and the one SpaceX and Amazon are taking.
Geosynchronous satellites are the more mature, more proven technology. Viasat and a company called Hughes, which is the former parent company of DirecTV, have been around for decades. (DirecTV actually used its dishes and infrastructure to offer a satellite internet service called DirecPC back in the late ’90s.)
Viasat and Hughes are also the two companies that most likely offer satellite broadband in remote parts of the US right now. If you’re someone who lives in the New Hampshire wilderness, where there are no terrestrial broadband options, you can get a version of DSL, which operates on existing copper telephone lines, that’s essentially as sluggish as dial-up. Or, you can sign up for geosynchronous satellite broadband through Viasat or Hughes and get speeds comparable to basic broadband: about 25 megabits per second. Plans start at $40 to $50 a month and get more expensive if you want more bandwidth.
Though they are dependable, these geosynchronous satellite systems have some issues. The main one is latency. The satellites are thousands of miles above Earth’s surface, so it takes time for data to travel — and that might mean a slight delay between sending and receiving. This isn’t a problem if you’re just browsing the web. It’s a significant problem if you’re trying to stream video games or do video calls, something we’re all doing more than ever before. Just think about remote TV news correspondents who have to wait half a beat between when the anchor in the studio asks the question and when they hear it in their earpiece, as the signal travels up to a communications satellite and then back down to the surface.
Low-Earth orbit constellations, like the ones SpaceX and Amazon are building, promise to solve the latency problem. Because the satellites are closer to the ground, the data doesn’t have to travel as far. Musk says this means SpaceX’s Starlink satellites, which will orbit at around 340 miles above the surface, will offer low latency, thus reducing the risk of lag. The latency question is a big deal to the FCC and its decision to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies, by the way. The agency says it will prioritize networks that offer low latency when giving out funding.
Still, there are other unanswered questions about just how fast and dependable newly designed low-Earth orbit constellations will be. Unlike geosynchronous satellites, which are fixed above one spot, low-Earth orbit satellites circle the planet every 90 to 120 minutes. They’re designed to stay connected to the ground station and to the end user by staying connected to each other, but if this chain gets broken, it would disrupt the connection. These constellations are also made up of thousands of relatively small satellites — Starlink satellites weigh less than 600 pounds — which means they require multiple launches, which are expensive.
“As more satellites go up, they optimize the network architecture,” explained Manny Shar, head of analytics at Bryce Space and Technology. “In the next couple of years, we should see decent improvements in rural areas where there’s really limited capability, and there’s limited competition to improve that. So at the very least, there will be an alternative option that those rural users can take advantage of.”
Shar’s point about limited competition is an important one. Many parts of the United States, for instance, have access to slower DSL connections thanks to telephone lines, but because upgrading that infrastructure is so expensive, the telecom companies that serve those areas often have little incentive to do so. That leaves residents depending on a mix of poor wired connections and often spotty cellular networks.
New technology like 5G could ostensibly bring faster cellular speeds to remote areas, but again, building that infrastructure takes time and money. Satellite broadband, meanwhile, can beam fast, reliable, and potentially affordable internet access down to nearly anywhere on Earth. This also requires time and money, but what we’re seeing in 2020 is that the pandemic is attracting all kinds of investment in the technology, which means more satellites are launching.
Both geosynchronous and low-Earth orbit satellite broadband systems have pros and cons. The former is already viable, albeit not perfect. The latter holds promise, albeit unfulfilled. But to reach that goal of connecting more people, it will all come down to money.
The slow march of progress
The future of satellite-based broadband largely depends on who can get the most bandwidth into space for the least amount of money. Each individual satellite, by design, can offer a limited amount of bandwidth, so companies are either making lots of satellites to launch at once — as SpaceX is doing — or they’re investing in technological improvements and launching new satellites every few years. This is Viasat’s strategy, and the company plans to launch a new satellite called Viasat 3 next year that’s expected to vastly improve its network. This satellite and others like it weigh tens of thousands of pounds, so these launches are expensive.
One could see the appeal of launching lots of smaller satellites over time, especially if you’re a company like SpaceX and own your own rockets. Amazon and its Project Kuiper, similarly, have the benefit of being owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the rocket ship maker Blue Origin. It’s unclear how Blue Origin might factor into Project Kuiper, however. In fact, Amazon has revealed very little about the project other than it plans to offer affordable high-speed, low-latency internet service through low-Earth orbit satellites.
“There are still too many places where broadband access is unreliable or where it doesn’t exist at all,” Amazon senior vice president Dave Limp said in a statement following the FCC’s approval of the first Project Kuiper launch. “Our $10 billion investment will create jobs and infrastructure around the United States that will help us close this gap.”
Selling affordable satellite broadband to individual customers in rural areas will not generate enough revenue to send the needed satellites to space. Again, each launch costs hundreds of millions of dollars, and selling service for $40 a month to individual households can’t cover the startup costs. And even then, not everyone who needs internet access can afford that. This economic challenge is part of why the dream of offering satellite-based internet to anybody on Earth — or any other kind of reliable, high-speed internet — has been so elusive.
This is also why companies that have been successful at building satellite broadband networks have approached the challenge from different angles. Viasat, for instance, spent years building out an enterprise business, selling bandwidth to the military and governments, not to mention helping you get wifi on airplanes. Now, the company says demand from the consumer market has been on the rise and has simply exploded since the pandemic hit. And that demand isn’t necessarily coming from the most remote areas.
“It turns out that a lot of the demand tends to be around the major metro areas,” said Viasat CEO Mark Dankberg. “In the highest demand markets — in the Midwest, in the Southeast — we’ve been out of bandwidth for two years. So we can’t have that many more customers until we get our next satellite.” Dankberg added Viasat is developing technology that would involve connecting its existing geosynchronous satellites with its own low-Earth orbit satellites, as well as cellular networks, for faster, lower latency connections.
As Recode’s Emily Stewart recently explained, broadband access isn’t just a problem in rural Montana. Even in city centers and suburbs, the infrastructure to offer high-speed internet access either doesn’t exist or is too expensive for many people to afford. This means that new options, including space internet, could connect millions of Americans more quickly than it would take to expand existing terrestrial infrastructure.
That doesn’t make providing access to those in far-flung regions any less of a priority, and government subsidy programs are helping to make this happen, albeit slowly. Coincidentally, just as the pandemic pushed the country into lockdown, the FCC launched its Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, which will provide up to $16 billion to telecom companies that expand internet access in rural areas. SpaceX has applied for funding, although it must prove its service offers the low latency and high speeds required by the agency to get the money. Viasat received $87.1 million in funding from a similar FCC program last year.
Again, in the absence of government funding, companies like SpaceX and Amazon are in a unique position to take the lead in the satellite broadband industry because building such an infrastructure will come in handy for other reasons. SpaceX is in a leading position to deliver its satellites into low-Earth orbit. The benefit of Amazon owning its own satellite broadband network also seems apparent. When it goes online, Project Kuiper could be an immediate boon to the company’s AWS business.
“Amazon is essentially, effectively going to be its own biggest customer to really prime the pump for the revenue stream,” said Beheshti, who is also a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. “And then, obviously, the additional revenue streams would come from the residential individual consumers.”
The benefits of satellite-based internet services have been obvious for years. However, for years, companies have struggled to make those ambitions meet reality. It’s not for lack of trying — and trying creative approaches, too. Alphabet continues to pursue a project called Loon, which started out as a Google experiment about 10 years ago. Loon involves using high-altitude balloons that beam internet access down to rural areas. After being deployed in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, a fleet of Loon balloons started delivering service to millions of people in Kenya in July, marking the first commercial application of the technology.
Meanwhile, Facebook has had its own far-fetched plans. Its initiative called Internet.org that aims to connect the entire planet suffered a big setback in 2016 when a SpaceX rocket carrying a satellite designed to deliver internet access to sub-Saharan Africa exploded on the launch pad. There was also Project Aquila, which involved sending solar-powered drones 60,000 feet into the atmosphere to connect rural areas. The company abandoned the project in 2018.
Big internet companies like Facebook and Google have also faced backlash for their lofty connectivity projects. While projects like Loon and Internet.org are billed as charitable initiatives to serve the public good, critics say they stand to violate the principles of net neutrality and serve the companies’ best interest rather than the public’s. After all, a free or low-cost internet service from Facebook or Google could simply steer billions of people to Facebook’s and Google’s products and services, Balkanizing the internet as we know it.
With all of these efforts, there are bound to be more failures, and possibly more backlash, in the future. Elon Musk’s goal of offering high-speed broadband to everyone on Earth is a lofty one. We do know that such a thing is technically possible. It’s expensive, and plenty of smart people are figuring out how to pay for it, while other promising tech, like 5G, continues to roll out. But if anything would motivate such a tremendous disruption in the internet service business, the pandemic should do it. Never before have we depended so much on connectivity. We might just have to leave planet Earth to get it.


vox--2020-09-26--The Trump administration is challenging a court ruling that prevents it from ending the census early

The current deadline to respond to the 2020 census is October 31 — but that could change depending on the outcome of a lawsuit that the Trump administration is currently fighting in federal court .
Earlier this week , a federal judge in California temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending counting efforts on September 30 , a month earlier than the administration has previously sought , because doing so would likely hurt the accuracy of the count .
Instead , US District Judge Lucy Koh extended the deadline until October 31 in order to give the Census Bureau more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mail , and by door knocking in undercounted areas .
But on Friday night , the Trump administration asked the Ninth Circuit to immediately suspend Koh ’ s ruling , arguing that the September 30 deadline must stand in order for it to be able to deliver final population counts to Congress by December 31 as it is required to do by federal law .
Those population counts will be used to determine how many representatives each state will receive in Congress — and to redraw congressional districts — in 2021 .
Koh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as well , suggesting that census results could be delivered to Congress by a later date .
But the Trump administration told the Ninth Circuit on Friday she didn ’ t have the authority to do so .
If the administration ’ s appeal succeeds , a shortened census could lead to inaccuracies and undercounts among historically hard-to-count populations — including communities of color , immigrants , and those living in rural areas , Census Bureau officials and former directors have warned .
It ’ s just the latest complication in what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charged census in recent history .
The Census Bureau had to suspend its operations for two months at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic , resuming counting efforts in June and scrambling to make up for lost time .
Ongoing wildfires on the West Coast and a historic hurricane season in the South have also created hurdles to completing the count in affected areas .
And President Donald Trump has sought to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used for redistricting , which could have the effect of depressing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their political power .
Why cutting short counting efforts could hurt the census ’ s accuracy The stakes of the census are high : Not only does it dictate representation in Congress and redistricting , but it also determines federal funding levels for health care , food stamps , highways and transportation , education , public housing , as well as unemployment insurance and public safety — among other programs .
An undercount could reduce communities ’ resources and political power for the next decade .
Trump administration officials knew cutting short census @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count , and what that could mean for historically hard-to-count populations .
Internal Census Bureau communications released in court filings show career civil servants warned that a shortened counting period would “ result in a census that has fatal data quality flaws that are unacceptable for a Constitutionally-mandated national activity.
” But the administration decided to move forward with their plan anyway .
Current response rates suggest census takers do , in fact , need more time for collection .
As of September 25 , the current nationwide self-response rate is 66.3 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 66.5 percent and 2000 rate of 67.4 percent .
But at the local level , response rates can vary widely .
For instance , in parts of Texas along the Mexico border , the self-response rate is still 15 percent or lower .
In order to capture households that have failed to self-report , census workers have to rely on alternate strategies for counting people , such as reports from their neighbors , which are not always accurate .
The bureau can also attempt to use administrative records , including Social Security and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gaps in responses .
That could be a problem — hard-to-count households are precisely the kind of households for which the federal government lacks reliable administrative records .
For instance , unauthorized immigrants do not have Social Security numbers and may rely on a cash economy without filing taxes with the IRS ( though many of them do file taxes ) .
A reliance on methods like these could also lead to housing units being categorized as vacant when there are people living there , particularly if a census taker can not reach @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and does not have the opportunity — or the time — to follow up .
All of this can lead to inaccuracies and undercounts that will strip communities of the political representation and the federal dollars they deserve .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The current deadline to respond to the 2020 census is October 31 — but that could change depending on the outcome of a lawsuit that the Trump administration is currently fighting in federal court.
Earlier this week, a federal judge in California temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending counting efforts on September 30, a month earlier than the administration has previously sought, because doing so would likely hurt the accuracy of the count. Instead, US District Judge Lucy Koh extended the deadline until October 31 in order to give the Census Bureau more time to collect responses online, by mail, and by door knocking in undercounted areas.
But on Friday night, the Trump administration asked the Ninth Circuit to immediately suspend Koh’s ruling, arguing that the September 30 deadline must stand in order for it to be able to deliver final population counts to Congress by December 31 as it is required to do by federal law. Those population counts will be used to determine how many representatives each state will receive in Congress — and to redraw congressional districts — in 2021.
Koh had recommended waiving that December 31 deadline, as well, suggesting that census results could be delivered to Congress by a later date. But the Trump administration told the Ninth Circuit on Friday she didn’t have the authority to do so.
If the administration’s appeal succeeds, a shortened census could lead to inaccuracies and undercounts among historically hard-to-count populations — including communities of color, immigrants, and those living in rural areas, Census Bureau officials and former directors have warned.
It’s just the latest complication in what has been the most chaotic and politically charged census in recent history.
The Census Bureau had to suspend its operations for two months at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic, resuming counting efforts in June and scrambling to make up for lost time. Ongoing wildfires on the West Coast and a historic hurricane season in the South have also created hurdles to completing the count in affected areas. And President Donald Trump has sought to exclude unauthorized immigrants from census population counts that will be used for redistricting, which could have the effect of depressing response rates in immigrant communities and undermine their political power.
Why cutting short counting efforts could hurt the census’s accuracy
The stakes of the census are high: Not only does it dictate representation in Congress and redistricting, but it also determines federal funding levels for health care, food stamps, highways and transportation, education, public housing, unemployment insurance, and public safety, among other programs. An undercount could reduce communities’ resources and political power for the next decade.
Trump administration officials knew cutting short census operations could lead to inaccuracies in the count and what that could mean for historically hard-to-count populations. Internal Census Bureau communications released in court filings show career civil servants warned that a shortened counting period would “result in a census that has fatal data quality flaws that are unacceptable for a Constitutionally-mandated national activity.” But the administration decided to move forward with its plan anyway.
Current response rates suggest census takers do, in fact, need more time for collection. As of September 25, the current nationwide self-response rate is 66.3 percent, slightly below the 2010 rate of 66.5 percent and 2000 rate of 67.4 percent. But at the local level, response rates can vary widely. For instance, in parts of Texas along the Mexico border, the self-response rate is still 15 percent or lower.
In order to capture households that have failed to self-report, census workers have to rely on alternate strategies for counting people, such as reports from their neighbors, which are not always accurate.
The bureau can also attempt to use administrative records, including Social Security and IRS data, to fill in the gaps in responses. That could be a problem — hard-to-count households are precisely the kind of households for which the federal government lacks reliable administrative records. For instance, unauthorized immigrants do not have Social Security numbers and may rely on a cash economy without filing taxes with the IRS (though many of them do file taxes).
A reliance on methods like these could also lead to housing units being categorized as vacant when there are people living there, particularly if a census taker cannot reach them due to factors like natural disasters, and does not have the opportunity — or the time — to follow up.
All of this can lead to inaccuracies and undercounts that will strip communities of the political representation and the federal dollars they deserve.