This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The U.S. Constitution requires an actual count of the population for the census.
In the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau added about 1.2 million people (0.4 % of the total) by statistically imputing occupants for 620,000 addresses based on neighboring households.
According to Mr. Dellinger, utah argues that counting zero people for a known occupied address is a counter‑factual enumeration and violates the Constitution’s requirement for an actual count.
The case asks whether the Census Bureau’s imputation method violates the Constitution and whether Utah has standing to sue.
Background and question before the Court
Since 1790, the Constitution has required that the census be conducted by an actual enumeration of the population.
The 2000 Census used statistical imputation, adding .4 % (about 1.2 million people) by estimating occupants for 620,000 addresses based on neighboring households.
According to Mr. Dellinger, utah contends that this imputation violates the constitutional requirement for an actual count.
Justiciability and standing of Utah are also in dispute.
What each side argues
Utah (Appellant)
According to Mr. Dellinger, utah argues that counting zero people for a known occupied address is a counter‑factual enumeration that violates the Constitution’s enumeration requirement.
According to Thomas R. Lee (Appellant), according to Thomas R. Lee (Appellant), utah points out that 69 % of the imputed units were of uncertain occupancy, showing that the Census Bureau applied imputation to addresses where occupancy could not be verified.
Secretary of Commerce (Appellee)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether the key issue is whether the method is sampling.
Justice Kennedy asked whether using a neighbor’s information to infer occupants is permissible.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether Utah’s injury is redressable given the timing of its aggrievement.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked whether Utah is aggrieved by distortion of its congressional districts.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked about justiciability and what remedy might be available.
According to Justice O'Connor, justice O’Connor asked whether the method is a proxy use of neighbor information or a statistical estimate.
According to Justice (unspecified), according to Justice (unspecified), an unspecified Justice asked which standing basis the Court agrees with.
- [1] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 20
- [2] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 21
- [3] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 38
- [4] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 39
- [5] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 40
- [6] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 43
- [7] d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdf, p. 57
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The census determines representation in Congress; how the population is counted can affect the political power of each state.
The case addresses whether statistical methods such as imputation can be used in the census, which could shape future population‑counting practices.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- d8c2902dad23ac701231-r1-3e34a1134a68630c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.