13 U.S.C. § 195
Use of sampling
Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as “sampling” in carrying out the provisions of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2024 · leading case: Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002).
Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452 (2002). “13 U. S. C. § 195 ; U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl.”
Dep't of Com. v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (1999). “" 13 U. S. C. § 195 (1970 ed.). This provision allowed the Secretary to authorize the use of *337 sampling procedures in gathering supplemental, nonapportionment census information regarding population, unemployment, housing, and other matters collected in conjunction with the…”
Dep't of Com. v. New York, 139 S. Ct. 2551 (2019). “C Another argument in favor of review relies on 13 U. S. C. §195 , which states: “Except for the determination of population for pur- poses of apportionment of Representatives in Con- gress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the…”
New York v. U.S. Dep't of Com., 351 F. Supp. 3d 502 (S.D. Ill. 2019). “Whereas Section 195 of Title 13 had previously merely authorized data collection through statistical sampling, the 1976 Census Act amended that provision to state that, "[e]xcept for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress…”
Trump v. New York, 592 U.S. 125 (2020). “452 , 475–476 (2002); see also 13 U. S. C. §195 . Here the record is silent on which (and how many) aliens have administra- tive records that would allow the Secretary to avoid imper- missible estimation, and whether the Census Bureau can even match the records in its possession…”
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 134 S. Ct. 1224 (2014). “Thus, nothing in Article 12 calls into question the discretionary power of courts to order return after the 1-year period has expired and the child has become settled. Reading the Convention to impose a prohibition on return would be highly anomalous, given that the "Convention…”
Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992). “Rep. No. 94-1256, at 4. Indeed, other portions of the Act limited the Secretary's authority by requiring, if feasible, the use of sampling in the nonapportionment census.”
United States House of Representatives v. United States Dep't of Com., 11 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 1998). “Most notably, because the Wisconsin challenge centered around whether sampling was required, as opposed to proscribed, the Court did not have occasion to consider Oklahoma’s argument that “Congress has constrained the Secretary’s discretion to statistically adjust the decennial…”
Margaret Carter & Susan Castillo v. United States Dep't of Com., Washington, D.C. 20230, 307 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2002). “13 U.S.C. § 195 . But only unadjusted data may be used for apportioning seats in the United States House of Representatives.”
Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996). “Second, although Oklahoma argues that Congress has constrained the Secretary’s discretion to statistically adjust the decennial census, see 13 U. S. C. § 195 , we need not decide that question in order to resolve this action.”
Utah v. Evans, 182 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Utah 2001). “JURISDICTION/JUSTICIABILITY Plaintiffs' complaint sets forth the following three separate causes of action: (1) Defendants' use of imputation violates the APA because Defendants have failed to provide a rational basis for the use of imputation instead of "traditional methods" of…”
City of Los Angeles v. United States Dep't of Com., 307 F.3d 859 (9th Cir. 2002). “The District Court rejected Appellants’ claim that Secretary Evans’ decision not to use the adjusted data (hereinafter “adjustment decision”) violated 13 U.S.C. § 195 , which requires the Secretary of Commerce to use “sampling” in conducting the census if “he considers it…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.