Michael Van Cleve v. Gina Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al.

In August 2020, I brought a challenge to the government’s application of the 1997 Office of Man­ agement and Budget race categories to the 2020 U.S. Census and 2020 American Community Survey. I also asked the district court to assemble a threejudge panel under Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title II, § 209(e). Less than a week after I filed a petition for mandamus with the circuit court to assemble a three-judge panel, the district court dismissed my case for a lack of Article III standing. The circuit court affirmed, finding that I did not plausibly allege an Article III injury in-fact. The circuit court did not decide if I was entitled to a three-judge panel. The questions presented are:

1. Is the current standing doctrine in conflict with the historical method of interpreting the Constitu­ tion?

2. Does 44 U.S.C. § 3563 or the Office of Man­ agement and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 1 give the public the legal right to accurate, relevant, and objective statistical information?

3. Did the diversion of my resources, expended before the operative complaint was filed, suffice as an Article III injury?

4. Can the circuit court create an alternative remedy outside the facts of the complaint and court record, to avoid finding that an Article III injury was plausibly pled?

5. Was the district court required to assemble a three-judge panel under Pub. L. No. 105-119, Title II, § 209(e)?