City of Detroit Lawsuit Challenging 2021 Census Results

Case 2:22-cv-12205-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 35
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THE CITY OF DETROIT,

Plaintiff, Case No.
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF COMMERCE, and GINA M.
RAIMONDO, in her official capacity
as Secretary of Commerce; and
UNITED STATES CENSUS
BUREAU, an agency within the
United States Department of
Commerce, and ROBERT L.
SANTOS, in his official capacity as
Director of the United States Census
Bureau,
Defendants.
_________________________________________________________________
CITY OF DETROIT FINK BRESSACK

LAW DEPARTMENT David H. Fink (P28235)
Conrad L. Mallett, Jr. (P30806) Nathan J. Fink (P75185)
Charles N. Raimi (P29746) Philip D.W. Miller (P85277)
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center 645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717
2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500 Detroit, Michigan 48226
Detroit, Michigan 48226 (313) 387-3300
(313) 224-4550 Counsel for Plaintiff
__________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, Fink Bressack and the
City of Detroit Law Department, and for its Complaint, states as follows:
Case 2:22-cv-12205-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 35
INTRODUCTION
1. Tens of thousands of Detroiters were uncounted in the Census Bureau’s
2021 estimate of the City’s population.
2. By the Bureau’s own admission, it has undercounted the nation’s Black
population by 3.30% and the Hispanic population by 4.99%, while overcounting the
non-Hispanic White population by 1.64%.
3. In Detroit, which has a 77.1% Black population and a 7.7% Hispanic
population, based upon the Bureau’s own statistics, over 20,000 Detroiters were
uncounted in the 2020 Census.
4. Yet, when the Bureau estimated Detroit’s population as of July 1, 2021,
rather than correcting the racially-biased undercount it had already admitted, the
Bureau reduced Detroit’s population by an additional 7,150 people compared to the
April 1, 2020 census count.
5. In fact, the best available evidence—including Postal Service records,
active water and electric utilities accounts, new residential construction projects, and
occupancy records from the Detroit Land Bank Authority—proves what city
residents, visitors, and businesses already know: Detroit gained population during
that time.
6. Notwithstanding its own acknowledgement of a racially-biased
undercount, the Census Bureau refuses to look at the evidence and correct its error.
2
7. Historically, Census Bureau regulations allowed municipalities to
submit evidence to correct inaccuracies in the annual population estimates.
8. On January 9, 2020, the Department of Commerce and Census Bureau
promulgated a rule temporarily suspending this “Population Estimates Challenge
Program” to accommodate taking the 2020 Census. The rule stated “[t]he Population
Estimates Challenge Program will resume in 2022 after the Census Bureau
concludes its responsibilities in the conduct of the decennial census.”
9. But now, without notice or opportunity for public comment, the Bureau
has adopted and applied an unpromulgated rule by simply decreeing on its website
that it will not consider evidence about miscounts in the 2021 estimates, and that
“[t]he program is expected to resume in 2023.”
10. The Bureau has denied Detroit’s request to submit evidence concerning
the accuracy of the 2021 estimate and has even refused to disclose to the City the
secret formula used to calculate the Bureau’s distorted population estimate.
11. Absent judicial intervention, Detroit is without recourse to correct this
racially-biased 2021 population undercount because the Commerce Department and
the Census Bureau refuse to abide by their own promulgated rule.
12. The Bureau’s failure to consider evidence of its inaccurate 2021
estimate costs the City and its residents millions of dollars of funding to which they
are entitled while threatening the City’s historic turnaround by advancing the false
3
narrative that Detroit is losing population.
13. The Census Bureau’s refusal to consider evidence that its 2021 estimate
of Detroit’s population is wrong—in direct violation of its own administrative rule—
perpetuates racial inequality, and disproportionately harms Detroit and its
communities of color. 1
PARTIES
14. Plaintiff City of Detroit (“Detroit” or the “City”) is a municipal
subdivision of the State of Michigan. Detroit is the largest city in Michigan, with a
population of over 639,111. More than 77% of Detroit’s residents identify as Black
or African American, giving the City the highest percentage of Black residents
among the 50 largest cities in the United States.
15. Defendant United States Department of Commerce is an executive
department of the federal government with jurisdiction over the Census Bureau. 13
U.S.C. § 2.
1
Separate from, and in addition to, the Bureau’s own admission of a racially-biased
undercount, there is much objective evidence that the 2020 Census dramatically
undercounted the population of Detroit. The City is challenging the 2020 Census
undercount through the Bureau’s available (though insufficient) administrative
procedures, including a Count Question Resolution (“CQR”) operation challenge
and forthcoming Post-Census Group Quarters Review (“PCGQR”) submission.
Given those potential administrative remedies, a challenge to the 2020 Census
undercount is not yet ripe for litigation, and this Complaint is directed to the 2021
population estimate, for which all available administrative remedies have been
exhausted.
4
16. Defendant Gina M. Raimondo is the Secretary of Commerce and is
sued in her official capacity. In addition to Congress’ delegation of authority for
conducting the decennial census to the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary is
required to produce reliable annual population estimates for each local unit of
government with a population of fifty thousand or more for every year between each
decennial census. 13 U.S.C. §§ 141(a), 181(a).
17. Defendant United States Census Bureau (the “Census Bureau” or the
“Bureau”) is an agency within, and under the jurisdiction of, the Department of
Commerce. 13 U.S.C. § 2.
18. Defendant Robert L. Santos is the Director of the Census Bureau and is
sued in his official capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331, 1346(a)(2), and 1361.
20. The declaratory and injunctive relief sought is authorized under the
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.
21. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and
(e)(1). A substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this matter occurred
in this judicial district. Defendants are United States agencies and employees of
United States agencies who are being sued solely in their official capacities.
5
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
The Census Bureau Admits that it Undercounts Detroit’s Minority Population
22. In March 2022, the Census Bureau released results from its Post-
Enumeration Survey (“PES”) and Demographic Analysis Estimates (“DA”) about
the quality of the 2020 Census count.2
23. Both the PES and DA estimate whether certain groups were
undercounted or overcounted. According to the Census Bureau, “[w]hile the two
approaches are different, the results show the PES and DA mostly align, providing
a more inclusive picture of who was counted in the 2020 Census.”
24. The results show that the 2020 Census “undercounted the Black or
African American population, the American Indian or Alaska Native population
living on a reservation, the Hispanic or Latino population, and people who reported
being of Some Other Race.”
25. Specifically, PES data show that in the 2020 Census:
• The Black or African American alone or in combination population had

a statistically significant undercount rate of 3.30%.
• The Hispanic or Latino population had a statistically significant

undercount rate of 4.99%.
• The non-Hispanic White alone population had a statistically significant
2
See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/2020-census-
estimates-of-undercount-and-overcount.html
6
overcount rate of 1.64%.
26. When the results of the Post-Enumeration Survey were released to the
public, Census Director Santos acknowledged: “the 2020 Census undercounted
many of the same population groups that we have historically undercounted”
(emphasis added).
27. Based on PES and DA data, it is possible to estimate the scale of the
undercount of Detroit’s population using the Census Bureau’s own measures.
28. The Bureau estimates that 77.1% of Detroit’s population is Black or
African American and that 7.7% of Detroiters are Hispanic or Latino. 3
29. Applying the PES finding that the 2020 Census failed to count 3.3 of
every 100 African Americans and 4.99 of every 100 Hispanics or Latinos to the
Bureau’s count of Detroit’s population in 2020, by the Bureau’s own measure, even
factoring in the overcount of non-Hispanic Whites in Detroit, the census missed
more than 20,000 Detroiters.
30. Yet in May 2022—two months after publicly confirming a racially-
biased undercount—the Bureau released its estimate of Detroit’s population as of
July 1, 2021, which not only failed to correct for the admitted undercount of
3
See
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/detroitcitymichigan,MI/PST045221
7
Detroit’s communities of color, but claimed a further decline of 7,150 people.4
31. Because the Census Bureau refuses to disclose the specific components
used to derive its population estimate, Plaintiff must infer the ways in which the
Bureau perpetuates the verified and historically targeted undercount of Detroit’s
Black and Hispanic population.
32. On information and belief, one factor that contributed to the flawed
2021 estimate is the Bureau’s imposition of an ill-conceived “county cap” rule,
which artificially limits the population estimates of all subcounty areas within a
given county and prevents the Bureau from correcting the admitted undercount of
the Black and Hispanic population of Detroit.
33. Under the county cap rule, if the total estimated population of
subcounty areas (for example, cities, towns, and villages) within a given county
exceeds the county-level estimate (calculated using a different methodology), the
Bureau reduces each subcounty-area population estimate to fit under the “county
4
The Census Bureau produces annual estimates of state, county, and municipal
populations as of July 1 of a given year. So the Bureau’s 2021 population estimate
for Detroit—632,464—is its estimate of the City’s population as of July 1, 2021.
Annual population estimates for cities are typically released in the year following
the year for which the population is estimated. Detroit’s 2021 population estimate
was released by the Bureau in May 2022. The decennial census counts the population
as of April 1 for each year ending in zero. So Detroit’s 2020 Census count—
639,111—is the Bureau’s count of the population of the City as of April 1, 2020.
8
cap.”5 The county cap is apparently applied regardless of any known and admitted
undercount.
34. On information and belief, among other factors, the Bureau accounts
for the age of a city’s housing stock in estimating its population. It applies a
“housing unit loss” rate that reduces the estimate for total housing units in a city
(which, in turn, reduces the population estimate) based on the age of residential
housing units. 6 Apparently this factor is applied with no consideration of the Detroit
Land Bank Authority’s work to return thousands of older housing units to active
residential use. This methodology results in a disparate impact on Detroit, a city
which has a disproportionately high percentage of pre-1940 housing units, and its
minority communities. The Census Bureau statistically erases these older homes,
which house many of Detroit’s Black and Hispanic residents, further perpetuating
the racially-biased estimate of the City’s population.
35. While the Bureau has disclosed some general information about
methodology for its population estimates, Plaintiff cannot fully understand the
derivation of the 2021 population estimate because, as described more fully below,
5
See the Census Bureau’s “Methodology for the Subcounty Total Resident
Population Estimates (Vintage 2021): April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021,” attached as
Exhibit A.
6
See the Census Bureau’s “Methodology for State and County Total Housing Unit
Estimates (Vintage 2021): April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021,” attached as Exhibit B.
9
the Bureau refuses to disclose the formula or data used.
36. Despite the well-documented historical and systemic undercounts of
Black and Hispanic populations7—and the Bureau’s own admission that it
undercounts those communities—the 2021 population estimate for Detroit
exacerbates this avoidable error and compounds the racial bias in the 2020
decennial census.
Contrary to the Bureau’s Racially-Biased Estimate, Detroit’s Population

Grew from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021
37. Any objective observer of Detroit knows—contrary to the Census
Bureau’s claim—Detroit’s population increased from April 1, 2020 (“Census Day”)
to July 1, 2021 (the date of the Bureau’s annual population estimate for Detroit).
38. Even to the casual observer, the growth of Detroit’s population is
demonstrated by no fewer than fourteen large-scale residential projects completed
in the City during this time, including the 56-unit Peterboro Arms at 26 Peterboro
Street, which opened in May 2020; the 147-unit Press/321 at 321 W. Lafayette
Boulevard, which opened in September 2020; the 110-unit Gabriel Houze
7
Populations that historically have been undercounted include persons of color,
young children, renters, and low-income households. See Alex Jones Small and
Spencer Wagner, “Census 2020: How to Count Hard-to-Count Communities,”
National League of Cities, May 3, 2019. Available at
https://www.nlc.org/article/2019/05/03/census-2020-how-to-count-hard-to-count-
communities/
10
apartments at 305 Michigan Avenue, which opened in February 2021; and the 287-
unit City Club Apartments at 313 Park Avenue, which opened in June 2021. Beyond
these examples, the data uniformly speak to the growth of the City’s population from
April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021, the Census Bureau’s flawed estimate notwithstanding.
United States Postal Service Records Confirm a Population Increase
39. United States Postal Service (“USPS” or “Postal Service”) records
show that there was a net increase of 4,475 residential addresses in service in Detroit
from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021.
40. The Postal Service provides aggregate counts of residential addresses
collected by postal workers to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(“HUD”) on a quarterly basis. According to HUD, “[t]he potential power of these
data is that they represent the universe of all addresses in the United States and are
updated every three months.”
41. The USPS aggregated data report the total count of residential
addresses, and the total count of vacant residential addresses.
42. Based on the USPS data, the total count of residential addresses in
service in Detroit as of July 1, 2021 was 4,475 greater than the corresponding figure
for April 1, 2020.
43. Using the 2020 Census’ own persons-per-occupied unit figure for
11
Detroit of 2.47, 8 an increase of 4,475 in-service residential addresses indicates a
population expansion in the City of Detroit of at least 11,053 people between April
1, 2020 and July 1, 2021.
Water and Sewerage Department Records Confirm a Population Increase
44. The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (“DWSD”) reported a net
increase of 6,964 active residential water accounts in the City between April 1, 2020
and July 1, 2021.
45. DWSD compiles data on water accounts for classes of customers
including commercial, industrial, municipal, and residential. A single residential
water account may serve between one and four units in a multi-unit building. Any
account serving more than four units is classified as commercial, so the figure for
residential accounts substantially understates the number of residential units being
served both because (1) the residential total excludes any account serving more than
four units, such as large apartment or condominium buildings, and (2) multi-unit
residential buildings (such as duplexes) with four or fewer units are recorded as one
account.
46. While the actual number of residential units served is likely greater,
8
This figure is calculated by (1) taking the population of Detroit as enumerated in
the 2020 Census minus the population living in group quarters, then (2) dividing by
the number of occupied housing units in Detroit enumerated in the 2020 Census.
12
there was a net increase of 6,964 residential accounts in Detroit during this period.
Applying the Census Bureau’s persons-per-occupied unit figure for Detroit of 2.47
and conservatively assuming just one unit per account, these data show an increase
in the City’s population of at least 17,201 from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021.
Detroit Land Bank Authority Records Confirm a Population Increase
47. Data collected by the Detroit Land Bank Authority (“DLBA”) show
that between April 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021, 1,583 previously vacant houses in
Detroit became occupied by homeowners who had purchased through DLBA
programs.
48. DLBA uses a variety of sales programs to support homeownership and
land purchases in Detroit. Each month, the land bank sells hundreds of structures to
purchasers charged with rehabilitating the structure to occupiable condition. The
land bank sells these homes pursuant to purchase agreements that mandate the
rehabilitation and re-occupancy of each structure sold. Land bank staff monitor the
rehabilitation process, preserving the right to reconvey a home if the purchaser does
not fulfill their obligation to rehabilitate it. To release this reconveyance right, the
land bank requires an inspection of the home to certify all compliance requirements
have been met. Compliance is achieved by a homeowner’s rehabilitating a property
and occupying the home.
49. DLBA’s data show that compliance was achieved for 1,583 residential
13
units in Detroit between April 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021.
50. Applying the Bureau’s 2.47 average person-per-occupied household
figure, considering DLBA compliance data alone, there was an increase of at least
3,910 people in previously-vacant homes purchased from DLBA in this period.
DTE Energy Service Accounts Confirm a Population Increase
51. Data from Detroit’s electricity provider, DTE Energy, show that from
April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021 there was a net increase of 7,544 active residential
service households in Detroit.
52. “Active residential service households” in the DTE data reflect separate
residential billing customers.
53. While the actual number of residential units served is likely greater,
based solely on the number of active residential service households, and applying
the Census Bureau’s persons-per-occupied unit figure of 2.47 (conservatively
assuming just one unit per account), these data reflect an increase in the City’s
population of at least 18,634 residents from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021.
In Violation of its own Rule, the Bureau Refuses to Countenance that its 2021
Estimate is Wrong
54. During regular operations, the Census Bureau offers an opportunity for
governmental units to challenge their official estimates through the Population
Estimates Challenge Program. Under this program, a governmental unit may
challenge its population estimate by submitting additional data to the Census Bureau
14
for evaluation. 9
55. On January 9, 2020, the Commerce Department and Census Bureau
published a notification of final rulemaking in the Federal Register temporarily
suspending the Population Estimates Challenge Program.10
56. The January 9, 2020 Federal Register Notice stated that the program
would be temporarily suspended “during the decennial census year (2020) and 2021
to accommodate the taking of the 2020 Census.” The Notice explains: “[t]he Census
Bureau will not accept challenges to the 2019 population estimates, to be released in
May 2020, because of conflicts with the Census Bureau’s Population Division staff’s
work to support the review and evaluation of the 2020 Decennial Census.”
57. The Notice continues: “[f]or these reasons the Census Bureau will
suspend the Population Estimates Challenge for the decennial year (2020) and 2021.
The Population Estimates Challenge program was suspended during 2010 and 2011
to accommodate the taking of the 2010 census.”
58. The Notice then concludes:
The Population Estimates Challenge Program will resume in 2022 after

the Census Bureau concludes its responsibilities in the conduct of the
9
The Commerce Department’s and Census Bureau’s “Procedure for Challenging
Population Estimates” is codified at 15 CFR part 90. A complete copy of those
regulations is attached as Exhibit C.
10
A complete copy of the January 9, 2020 Federal Register Notice is attached as
Exhibit D.
15
decennial census . . . . At that time, states, counties, and other units of

general-purpose government may initiate challenges to population
estimates under the procedures set forth in 15 CFR part 90. The Census
Bureau would accept challenges beginning with the 2021 population
estimates. The 2021 population estimates will be based upon the 2020
Census counts and are scheduled for release in 2022 (emphasis added).
59. Notwithstanding promulgation of this rule, the Census Bureau—
without notice or opportunity for public comment—unilaterally decreed that it
would not restart the program in 2022. The Bureau simply posted a statement on its
website that: “A Federal Register Notice announcing the resumption of the program
will be posted in 2022. The program is expected to resume in 2023.”11
60. Relying on the rule promulgated on January 9, 2020, which stated that
the program “will resume in 2022” to “accept challenges beginning with the 2021
population estimates,” the City took steps to submit evidence regarding the
inaccuracy of the 2021 estimate.
61. On August 4, 2022, Detroit Mayor Michael E. Duggan formally
requested the “derivation sheet containing the components used to create the
population estimate,” which is the first step in submitting a challenge.12
62. Later that day, the Census Bureau’s Assistant Division Chief for
11
See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/challenge-
program.html
12
A copy of Mayor Duggan’s correspondence to the Census Bureau is attached as
Exhibit E.
16
Estimates and Projections rejected the City’s request. In her email response, she
stated:
. . . [W]e cannot honor the request at this time. The Population

Estimates Challenge Program was suspended in January 2020, as is a
usual practice surrounding the [] decennial census year, and the
resumption of the program has not taken effect yet. Presently, we are
working to prepare the Federal Register Notice that will reinstate the
program. We expect it to be available later this year, which will enable
us to accept challenges to our July 1, 2022 estimates.
63. Thus the Bureau has cast aside its promulgated rule and unilaterally
adopted a new unpromulgated rule, eliminating the City’s right to challenge the 2021
population estimate.
64. The Census Bureau is using this unpromulgated rule to prevent Detroit
from seeking any administrative relief from the racially disparate undercount of its
population in the Bureau’s 2021 estimate—an undercount that Director Santos has
openly admitted.
If the City were Allowed to Challenge the 2021 Population Estimate, the
Census Bureau’s Existing Rules are Too Narrow to Provide Complete Relief
65. The current rules governing the Population Estimates Challenge
Program, promulgated following the 2010 Census and codified at 15 CFR part 90,
are so narrowly written that they prevent a fair evaluation and real adjustment to an
incorrect estimate, even when a challenge is backed by conclusive evidence.
66. Under the current rules, Detroit is not permitted to present evidence
challenging the population or housing unit “base” used for the annual estimates, even
17
when, as here, the Bureau admits that it undercounted tens of thousands of Black
and Hispanic Detroiters.
67. As part of any challenge to the 2021 population estimate, the City must
be permitted to present evidence regarding the accuracy of the “base” population
and housing unit counts, including with respect to housing vacancy rates and person-
per-household figures.
68. The Bureau’s refusal to consider relevant evidence regarding the
population and housing count “base,” which drives the annual population estimates,
constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act that is without a reasonable basis.
69. The Bureau’s “county cap” rule also irrationally restricts adjustments
to a city’s population and precludes meaningful relief. Compounding the problem,
the Bureau has, but does not publish, data that would show how much the county
cap rule distorts the City’s population estimate.
70. The county cap rule has a disproportionate and discriminatory impact
on Detroit’s Black and Hispanic residents because no matter how much compelling
evidence the City amasses showing that its population grew, any increase would be
offset in the event that (as is the case here) Wayne County records suggest a decline
in the overall county population, even if that decline actually occurred among less
racially diverse areas outside of Detroit.
71. When, as here, a city presents clear and convincing evidence that its
18
population is miscounted in an annual estimate, the Bureau’s refusal to account for
that evidence because of an artificial county cap makes the right to challenge illusory
and constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act that is without a reasonable basis.
72. Finally, under the current rules, Detroit is not permitted to present
evidence addressing all of the components of population change that affect its annual
population estimate, such as evidence of births, deaths, migration, or other high
quality administrative data that are relevant to calculating the population of the
City.13
73. The Bureau’s refusal to consider all evidence—evidence that is directly
relevant to its mandate to “annually produce and publish for each State, county, and
local unit of general purpose government which has a population of fifty thousand
or more, current data on total population and population characteristics” (13 U.S.C.
§ 181(a))—constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act that is without a reasonable
basis.
The City Has Been Significantly Harmed
74. The impact of the 2021 population estimate’s undercount of Detroit is
13
Such administrative data should include data from utilities providers; local
property tax records; certificates of occupancy; inspection data; building footprint
files; emergency services records; school enrollment records; property sales data;
Postal Service Delivery Point Validation data; and all other reliable data sources,
including work product of academic and research studies.
19
severe. Since 2010, the City of Detroit and its residents have received more than
$3.5 billion annually in federal funding tied directly to the most recent census
figures. Private investment in the City is also affected; incorrect annual population
estimates hinder Detroit’s growth by painting a misleading picture that people are
leaving the City.
75. According to the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau, “132
programs used Census Bureau data to distribute more than $675 billion in funds
during fiscal year 2015.” 14
76. Annual population estimates are used as controls for census programs
such as the American Community Survey (“ACS”) and other federal surveys that
are directly tied to allocation formulas or eligibility criteria for programs that provide
funding to the City and its residents.
77. As Thomas Mesenbourg, then-Acting Director of the Census Bureau
explained in testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform:
The population estimates are used in many formulas to allocate funding.

They are also used in the production of the final American Community
Survey estimates released to the public. Thus the quality of the official
14
See “Uses of Census Bureau Data in Federal Funds Distribution,” U.S.
Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau, September 2017. Available at https://www2.census.gov/programs-
surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/working-papers/Uses-of-Census-
Bureau-Data-in-Federal-Funds-Distribution.pdf
20
population estimates and the American Community Survey are

inextricably linked to the accuracy of the decennial census. Federal
agencies that administer grants and other Federal funds allocation
programs typically use a mix of the decennial census, population
estimates, and information from the American Community Survey. 15
78. The City receives and is directly impacted by federal funding tied to the
annual estimates of population and housing units through many different programs:
• The City benefits from millions of dollars allocated annually through

the Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
based on annual population estimates and ACS data.
• The City receives millions of dollars annually through HUD’s HOME

Investment Partnerships Program based on ACS data.
• Funding directed to the City through the federal government’s

Emergency Solutions Grants program is negatively affected by the
reported population loss in the Bureau’s annual population estimate.
• Community Development Block Grant funding, which takes into

account the City’s pre-1940 housing stock, is negatively affected by the
erroneous and racially-biased undercount of Detroit’s residential
housing units in the most recent annual estimate.
• Detroiters benefit from Medicaid, Head Start, transit programs, Title 1

grants to local education agencies, and myriad other programs, funding
for which is allocated, in whole or in part, on annual population
estimates.
79. The City and its residents are harmed by the loss of federal funding
15
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National
Archives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Serial No. 111-23, available at
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg53869/html/CHRG-
111hhrg53869.htm
21
caused by the 2021 population estimate’s undercount of Detroit’s population and
housing units.
80. The City and its residents are harmed by the Bureau’s unpromulgated
rule preventing the City from presenting evidence to correct the 2021 population
estimate.
81. The City and its residents face further harm because the Census
Bureau’s 2021 population estimate’s undercount creates a barrier to the City’s
redevelopment by delivering the false message that people are leaving Detroit, when,
in fact, thousands of people are moving in.
82. The Census Bureau admits that annual population estimates affect
private investment in communities, explaining the impact of census data on business
decision-making in an October 2019 report: “[b]usinesses use population statistics
to help decide where to add jobs or open new stores, offices or other businesses in
communities across the country.”16
83. Based on the 2021 population estimate’s racially-biased undercount of
Detroit, the City and its residents will be short-changed millions of federal dollars,
while the false story that Detroit is losing population discourages private investment
16
“Yes, Data Can Make or Break a Business,” Census Bureau Publication, October
19, 2019, available at https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/10/can-census-
bureau-data-drive-business-growth-job-creation.html
22
and threatens to slow the momentum of the City’s growth.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)
84. The preceding paragraphs are repeated and realleged as if fully set forth
herein.
85. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D), this Court shall hold unlawful and
set aside agency actions accomplished “without observance of procedure required
by law.”
86. On or before February 2, 2022, the Census Bureau, without providing
notice or opportunity for public comment, stated on its website that the Population
Estimates Challenge Program “is expected to resume in 2023.” 17
87. This statement constitutes a rule under the Administrative Procedure
Act, which defines “rule” as:
the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular

applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or
prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, procedure, or
practice requirements of an agency . . . . 5 U.S.C. § 551(4).
17
See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/challenge-
program.html
23
88. This unpromulgated rule purports to supersede, and is in contravention
of, the January 9, 2020 promulgated rule stating that the “Population Estimates
Challenge Program will resume in 2022 . . . .”
89. 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) requires that, when an agency promulgates a rule,
“[g]eneral notice of proposed rule making shall be published in the Federal
Register.”
90. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c) requires that, after public notice regarding a proposed
rule is made, “the agency shall give interested persons an opportunity to participate
in the rule making through the submission of written data, views, or arguments . . .”
91. Pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 181(a), the Census Bureau is required, to the
extent feasible, to create and publish annually current data on total population and
population characteristics for each state, county and local unit of government with a
population of fifty thousand or more.
92. In enacting 13 U.S.C. § 141(e)(1), Congress expressed its intent that
census data be collected to ensure the accurate distribution of federal funding to local
units of government.
93. The City of Detroit is a unit of local government with a population of
fifty thousand or more.
94. The 2021 population estimate for the City of Detroit substantially
undercounts the population of the City.
24
95. To ensure the accuracy of population estimates required by 13 U.S.C.
§ 181(a), the Census Bureau created the Population Estimates Challenge Program,
codified at 15 C.F.R. part 90.
96. As stated in 15 C.F.R. § 90.2:
It is the policy of the Census Bureau to provide the most accurate

population estimates possible given the constraints of time, money, and
available statistical techniques. It is also the policy of the Census
Bureau to provide governmental units the opportunity to seek a review
and provide additional data to these estimates and to present evidence
relating to the accuracy of the estimates.
97. The City of Detroit has an interest in the accuracy of annual population
estimates published by the Census Bureau, which Congress has protected through
the enactment of 13 U.S.C §§ 141 and 181.
98. The City of Detroit has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the
inaccurate 2021 population estimate through the loss of federal funds to which it and
its residents are entitled and by the adverse impact of the population undercount on
the City’s burgeoning economic growth.
99. Accordingly, this Court should hold unlawful and set aside the
Bureau’s unpromulgated rule delaying the reinstatement of the Population Estimates
Challenge Program until 2023.
25
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
herein.
101. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), this Court shall hold unlawful and
set aside agency action found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law.”
102. The Census Bureau stated in its January 9, 2020 Rule that “[t]he
Population Estimates Challenge Program will resume in 2022 after the Census
Bureau concludes its responsibilities in the conduct of the decennial census.”
103. The Census Bureau assured local units of government in the January 9,
2020 rule that, after the Population Estimates Challenge Program is restarted in
2022, “[t]he Census Bureau would accept challenges beginning with the 2021
population estimates.”
104. The Census Bureau has completed operations associated with the 2020
decennial census, with apportionment results released on April 26, 2021 and the final
redistricting data released to the states on September 16, 2021.
105. On or before February 2, 2022, the Census Bureau, without providing
notice or opportunity for public comment, stated on its website that the Population
Estimates Challenge Program “is expected to resume in 2023.”
26
106. This unpromulgated rule purported to supersede, and is in
contravention of, the January 9, 2020 Rule stating that the “Population Estimates
Challenge Program will resume in 2022 . . . .”
107. The Census Bureau released the 2021 population estimate for the City
of Detroit on May 26, 2022.
108. The Census Bureau has admitted that the 2020 Census undercounted
the Black and Hispanic population and overcounted the non-Hispanic White
population, but that admitted undercount was not corrected in the 2021 population
estimate for the City of Detroit.
109. Pursuant to 15 CFR § 90.6(a) a request to challenge a population
estimate must be filed within 90 days after the release of the estimate by the Census
Bureau.
110. The City’s request for the derivation sheet containing the components
used to create the population estimate—the necessary first step in challenging the
2021 population estimate—was timely.
111. The Bureau applied its unpromulgated rule by denying the City’s
request on August 4, 2022.
112. The City has therefore been precluded from challenging the inaccurate
2021 population estimate.
27
113. The City of Detroit has been, and will continue to be, harmed by the
inaccurate 2021 population estimate.
114. The Census Bureau’s unilateral decision not to resume the Population
Estimates Challenge Program in 2022 prevents the City from challenging the
inaccurate 2021 population estimate, in contravention of Congress’s direction that
accurate data be collected to ensure the proper distribution of federal funding to local
units of government and the Bureau’s policy, as stated in 15 CFR § 90.2, “to provide
governmental units the opportunity to seek a review and provide additional data to
[population] estimates and to present evidence relating to the accuracy of the
estimates.”
115. The Census Bureau’s unpromulgated rule continuing the suspension of
the Population Estimates Challenge Program into 2023 is arbitrary, capricious, an
abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with law.
116. The Bureau’s refusal to consider relevant evidence regarding the
population and housing count “base,” which drives the annual population estimates,
as part of its Population Estimates Challenge Program, constitutes an arbitrary and
capricious act that is without a reasonable basis.
117. The Bureau’s refusal to make appropriate adjustments to its population
estimate notwithstanding evidence showing an increase in Detroit’s population
28
between April 1, 2020 and July 1, 2021 because of the artificial “county cap”
constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act that is without a reasonable basis.
118. The Bureau’s refusal to consider clear and convincing administrative
data on all relevant components of population change as part of its Population
Estimates Challenge Program—evidence that is directly relevant to its mandate to
“annually produce and publish for each State, county, and local unit of general
purpose government . . . current data on total population and population
characteristics” (13 U.S.C. § 181(a))—constitutes an arbitrary and capricious act that
is without a reasonable basis.
119. Accordingly, this Court should hold unlawful and set aside the
Bureau’s unpromulgated rule delaying the reinstatement of the Population Estimates
Challenge Program until 2023; direct the Bureau to consider evidence regarding the
population and housing unit “base” as part of its Population Estimates Challenge
Program; direct the Bureau to eliminate the “county cap,” which arbitrarily hinders
an accurate estimate of the City’s population; and direct the Bureau to permit Detroit
to challenge all relevant “change components” used in the annual population
estimate with reliable administrative data.
29
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

5 U.S.C. § 706(1)
herein.
121. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) this Court shall “compel agency action
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.”
122. Pursuant to 13 U.S.C. § 181(a), the Bureau is required, to the extent
feasible, to produce reliable population estimates for each local unit of government
with a population of fifty thousand or more for every year between each decennial
census.
123. Under 15 CFR § 90.9:
The Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau, or the Chief’s designee

shall review the evidence provided with the request for the population
estimate challenge, shall work with the governmental unit to verify the
data provided by the governmental unit, and evaluate the data to resolve
the issues raised by the governmental unit. Thereafter, the Census
Bureau shall respond in writing with a decision to accept or deny the
challenge” (emphasis added).
124. The Census Bureau’s obligation to permit governmental units to
challenge population estimates is not discretionary.
125. The Census Bureau stated in its January 9, 2020 rule that “[t]he
Population Estimates Challenge Program will resume in 2022 after the Census
Bureau concludes its responsibilities in the conduct of the decennial census.”
30
126. The Bureau is required by law to resume the Population Estimates
Challenge Program in 2022.
127. This Court should therefore issue an Order compelling the Census
Bureau to resume its challenge program by promptly accepting and fairly evaluating
challenges to the 2021 population estimates.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT’S GUARANTEE OF
EQUAL PROTECTION
herein.
129. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that
the federal government not deny people the equal protection of its laws, and prohibits
the federal government from discriminating against persons living in the United
States on the basis of race or ethnicity.
130. By its own admission, the Bureau undercounted the Black population
by 3.30% and the Hispanic population by 4.99%, while overcounting the non-
Hispanic White population by 1.64%
131. Notwithstanding this admission, the Bureau refused to correct its
racially-biased undercount of Detroit’s population in the 2021 annual estimate, and
refuses to allow the City to submit evidence challenging the 2021 estimate, thus
perpetuating and reinforcing the racial bias that disproportionately harms the people
31
of Detroit.
132. On information and belief, certain methodologies employed by the
Bureau in calculating its annual estimate of the City’s population—including,
without limitation, the “housing unit loss” factor, which disproportionately
discriminates against predominantly minority communities living in older housing,
and the “county cap” rule, under which evidence establishing an increase in Detroit’s
majority-minority population is necessarily offset by county-level figures related to
less racially diverse communities outside of Detroit—have a disparate impact on the
City and its Black and Hispanic residents.
133. Defendants’ decisions bear no rational relationship to achieving an
accurate estimate of Detroit’s population.
134. Defendants’ intentional actions have resulted in actual discrimination
against Detroit’s Black and Hispanic residents by excluding many of them from the
2021 population estimate, and by failing to afford the City any remedy to correct
that undercount.
135. The result of Defendants’ actions is, among other things, a reduction in
the levels of federal funding, benefits, and other resources to which the City of
Detroit and its Black and Hispanic residents are entitled, along with a reduction in
private investment due to the false narrative of population loss.
136. Black and Hispanic Detroiters have suffered, and will continue to
32
suffer, discriminatory effects due to the racially-biased undercount reflected in, and
reinforced by, the 2021 population estimate.
137. Those discriminatory effects include a reduction in the amount of
federal funds available to Detroiters, and a reduction in private investment in Detroit,
a city where Black and Hispanic residents collectively comprise over 84% of the
population.
138. In whole or in part, the federal government uses data from the annual
population estimates to allocate billions of dollars of federal funding involving many
federal programs, including Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, highway planning and construction, School Lunch Program, Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, Title 1 grants to local education agencies, Head Start,
and Community Development Block Grants, and the Census Bureau admits that
“businesses use population statistics to help decide where to add jobs or open new
stores, offices or other businesses in communities across the country.”
139. Defendants’ purposeful actions, reflected in, and reinforced by, the
2021 population estimate of Detroit, are discriminatory and without rational basis,
let alone any important or compelling governmental interest.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Hold unlawful and set aside the Bureau’s unpromulgated rule delaying
33
the reinstatement of the Population Estimates Challenge Program until 2023;
2. Issue an Order compelling the Census Bureau to promptly accept and
fairly evaluate challenges to the 2021 population estimates;
3. Issue an Order directing the Bureau to consider evidence regarding the
population and housing unit “base” as part of its Population Estimates Challenge
Program, including with respect to housing vacancy rates and person-per-household
figures;
4. Issue an Order directing the Bureau to eliminate the “county cap” rule;
5. Issue an Order directing the Bureau to permit Detroit to challenge all
relevant “change components” used in the annual population estimate with reliable
administrative data;
6. Declare that Defendants’ intentional refusal to correct the racially-
biased undercount of Detroit’s population in the 2021 annual estimate, and refusal
to allow the City to submit evidence challenging the 2021 estimate, negatively and
disproportionately affects the count of the City and results in actual discrimination
against Detroit’s Black and Hispanic residents;
///
///
///
///
34
7. Award Plaintiff its reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including
attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and
8. Award such additional relief as the Court deems proper.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: September 20, 2022 FINK BRESSACK
By: /s/ David H. Fink

David H. Fink (P28235)
Nathan J. Fink (P75185)
Philip D.W. Miller (P85277)
645 Griswold Street, Suite 1717
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 387-3300
CITY OF DETROIT
LAW DEPARTMENT
Conrad L. Mallett, Jr. (P30806)
Charles N. Raimi (P29746)
Coleman A. Young Municipal Center
2 Woodward Avenue, Suite 500
Detroit, Michigan 48226
(313) 224-4550
Counsel for Plaintiff
35
Case 2:22-cv-12205-RHC-APP ECF No. 1-1, PageID.36 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 4
Exhibit A
METHODOLOGY FOR THE SUBCOUNTY TOTAL RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATES (VINTAGE 2021):
APRIL 1, 2020 TO JULY 1, 2021
OVERVIEW
The U.S. Census Bureau produces estimates of total resident population for all areas of general-purpose
government on an annual basis. The subcounty areas consist of both incorporated places (such as cities,
boroughs, and villages) and minor civil divisions (such as towns and townships). We use updated housing
unit estimates to distribute county household population to subcounty areas based on housing unit
change. We produce county-level population estimates with a cohort-component method. This method
measures change since the date of the last census using administrative data on births, deaths, and
domestic and international migration. A more detailed description of the state and county population
and housing unit estimates methods can be found at: https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology.html.
METHOD
The 2020 Census base counts of housing units and associated population of each governmental unit are
geographically updated each year to reflect legal boundary changes reported in the Boundary and
Annexation Survey (BAS), from other geographic program revisions, and from 2020 Census corrections
when available.
The subcounty population estimates may include revisions from accepted challenges to the estimates and
special censuses for full jurisdictions. 1,2 Both types of revisions are incorporated through the population
components. There were no accepted challenges or special censuses for inclusion in the Vintage 2021
population estimates.
The Census Bureau develops the subcounty population estimates for the household and group
quarters populations separately, and then combines them to calculate the resident population. We
estimate the household population by applying the “Distributive Housing Unit Method” to the county-
level household population to distribute it to each subcounty area as illustrated by the following steps:
Step 1 - Producing an Uncontrolled Subcounty Household Population Estimate
The Vintage 2021 uncontrolled subcounty household population estimate begins with the July 1, 2021
housing unit estimate. We multiply this estimate by the Household Population Per Housing Unit ratio,
which is the quotient of the 2020 Census household population 3 and the 2020 Census housing units. This
1 Population Estimates Challenge Program results are available here:

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/challenge-program/results.html.
2 Special Census Program results are available at https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/specialcensus/data_products/official_counts.html and special census areas included in previous series of estimates are
available here: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/special-census.html.
3
The 2020 Census household population totals feature confidentiality protections applied using the 2020 Census Disclosure
Avoidance System prior to the processing of the subcounty estimates.
1
produces the final uncontrolled population estimate. 4
Step 2 - Producing a Controlled Subcounty Household Population Estimate
We then control the subcounty estimates of household population from Step 1 so that they sum to the
published county totals. To do this, we divide the 2021 county-level household population estimate by
the sum of the uncontrolled subcounty household population estimates within the county. We multiply
this adjustment or “rake factor” by the uncontrolled subcounty household population estimates
calculated in Step 1. This calculation produces the controlled subcounty household population estimate.
We round this controlled estimate using a variation of the greatest mantissa methodology. 5
Step 3 – Estimating the Group Quarters Population
The group quarters (GQ) component of the total estimate is a combination of persons residing in
institutional facilities and non-institutional facilities.
The institutional facilities include four types:
• Correctional facilities
• Juvenile facilities
• Nursing homes
• Other institutional group quarters.
The non-institutional facilities include three types:
• College dormitories
• Military barracks
• Other non-institutional group quarters.
In a typical year, we would use GQ population data from two sources to estimate subcounty populations:
• 2020 Census counts of the GQ population by facility type for each subcounty area, including any
post-2020 additions to the GQ population when available, and
• A time series of individual group quarters records from the Group Quarters Report (GQR) that the
Population Estimates Program (PEP) prepares based upon annual updates from state
representatives of the Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE).
These two sets of GQ population data would be used to derive a time series of GQ population through
the following process:
Part 1 – Aggregate the GQ population from the 2020 Census to the subcounty level by the seven
facility types.
4 We apply a national-level Household Population Per Housing Unit ratio to new housing estimates in areas with zero values for
population or housing as of the 2020 Census.
5 Greatest mantissa rounding subtracts the integer values from the controlled total and then adds ones, one row at a time (i.e.,
smallest geographic parts within county) until the rounded total reaches the controlled total.
2
Part 2 – Sum the facility-level group quarters populations from the GQR to the subcounty level by
the seven facility types for each estimate date in the time series.
Part 3 – Calculate the year-to-year change indicated by the aggregated GQR time series of
population and add this time series of change to the aggregated 2020 Census data. This creates a
census-based time series of group quarters population at the subcounty level for each of the seven
facility types.
For Vintage 2021, we were unable to estimate the GQ population with our usual method because of a
delay in the availability of GQ data from the 2020 Census and complications due to the COVID-19
pandemic. Therefore, the GQ population data in the Vintage 2021 subcounty estimates were built using a
modified approach:
Part 1 – For counties, apply proportions reflecting the size of the group quarters population on April
1, 2020 from the Vintage 2020 estimates (based on 2010 Census) to the estimated April 1, 2020
Vintage 2021 resident population. 6
Part 2 – For subcounty areas, aggregate the GQ population from the 2020 Census to the subcounty
level. 7
Part 3 – Control the subcounty aggregations from Part 2 to the county estimates of the group
quarters population from Part 1 using a similar process to the one described for the household
population above in Step 2.
Part 4 – Hold the April 1, 2020 GQ population constant to produce the July 1 estimates with the
assumption of no GQ change since April 1, 2020. 8
As more data have become available on the pandemic’s impact on the GQ population, we are
reevaluating this approach for future vintages.
Step 4 – Producing the Final Subcounty Population Estimate
To produce the final subcounty resident population estimate, we add the controlled household population
estimate to the total group quarters population estimate.
6
For more information on the methodology used to develop the Vintage 2021 county-level population estimates, see:
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/methodology/2020-2021/methods-statement-
v2021.pdf.
7
The 2020 Census group quarters population totals feature confidentiality protections applied using the 2020 Census Disclosure
Avoidance System prior to the processing of the subcounty estimates.
8
When producing the estimates in a normal year, we work with our FSCPE partners to gather information on annual change in GQ
populations. Given the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, we consulted with the FSCPE and then determined the most
empirically sound approach was to hold the population levels in the April 1, 2020, estimates base constant into 2021, resulting in
no GQ change between 2020 and 2021.
3
Exhibit B
METHODOLOGY FOR STATE AND COUNTY TOTAL HOUSING UNIT ESTIMATES (VINTAGE 2021):
APRIL 1, 2020 TO JULY 1, 2021
OVERVIEW
The U.S. Census Bureau produces annual estimates of the number of housing units. For each annual
release of housing unit estimates, the entire series of estimates beginning with the most recent decennial
census—in this case, April 1, 2020—is revised and updated. The estimates use building permits, estimates
of non-permitted construction, mobile home shipments, and estimates of housing loss to estimate change
in the housing stock. These component data come from various Census Bureau surveys.
We produce housing unit estimates for all states and counties annually. These estimates are released to the
public, and they are used as controls for several Census Bureau surveys, including the American Community
Survey (ACS), the American Housing Survey (AHS), and the Housing Vacancy Survey (HVS). In addition to state
and county housing unit estimates, we also produce subcounty housing unit estimates. These estimates are
central to the production of population estimates for cities and towns across the nation.
METHOD
We produce housing unit estimates using the components of housing change. In this model, we add
together the 2020 Census count of housing units, estimated new residential construction, and estimated
new mobile homes. From this sum, we subtract the estimated housing units lost. Lost units also include
a component for units lost due to natural disasters. The computation of annual July 1 housing unit
estimates is expressed by the following formula:
2020 Census New July 1

New Mobile Housing Units
Housing Residential Housing Unit
Homes Lost
Units Construction Estimate
After these data are combined to produce a preliminary set of housing estimates, they are reviewed by
members of the Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE). The final housing estimates
may reflect updates from their review of the estimates. Each component of the housing unit change
model is described below.
2020 Census Housing Units
Every year, we re-tabulate the 2020 Census counts of housing units in current legal geographic
boundaries to form the base for the annual housing unit estimates. The base for the housing estimates
reflects annual geographic boundary updates from the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS) that are
legally effective as of January 1. The base also includes the results of completed Count Question
Resolution (CQR) actions (not specifically applicable to the Vintage 2021 series) and geographic program
revisions incorporated into the Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and
Referencing (MAF/TIGER) Database through May of each estimates year.
1
New Residential Construction
Residential construction is the largest component of housing change. We estimate new residential
construction in two parts: permitted construction and non-permitted construction. The calculation of
new residential construction is represented by the following formula:
Permitted Construction
Building Permit Non- New

Permits Completion permitted Residential
Issued Rate Construction Construction
Permitted Construction
Annual estimates of new permitted construction are computed by multiplying the number of residential
building permits issued by a permit completion rate. Data on issued permits come from the Building
Permits Survey (BPS). 1 According to the Census Bureau, the BPS sample covers all places issuing building
permits for privately-owned residential structures and over 98 percent of all buildings constructed are in
permit-issuing places. 2 This survey includes reported permits from approximately 20,000 jurisdictions.
These data are reported to the BPS by calendar year for cities and towns across the country. Implicit in
the method of using calendar year permits is an assumption of a six-month lag time between when a
building permit is issued and when the housing unit is completed. Thus, permits that are issued in the
first six months of a particular calendar year are not processed in the housing unit estimates until the
following year. For example, the July 1, 2020 housing unit estimates are based on permits issued
between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. Permits issued between January 1, 2020 and
December 31, 2020 will be processed in the 2021 housing unit estimates.
The permit completion rates used to calculate new permitted construction are based on national
estimates of permits that are either abandoned or deemed “out of scope” by the Survey of Construction
(SOC). 3¸4 We update the completion rate every year as new survey data become available.
The 2021 permit completion rate reflects the percent of building permits issued in calendar year 2020
that resulted in completed housing units.
Non-permitted Construction
Estimates of new, non-permitted construction are calculated using data on new residential housing units
constructed in places that do not issue building permits. These data also come from the SOC. The
1 The Census Bureau conducts the BPS. For more information about this survey, see https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/.
2
See “Coverage” section for the BPS at https://www.census.gov/construction/bps/about_the_surveys/.
3 Abandoned permits are permits where the survey respondent or building permit office has indicated that construction of the
housing unit(s) authorized by that permit will not be completed using that permit. Out-of-scope permits are those that were
reported as permits for new, privately-owned housing units by the building permit office, but it was later determined that the
units did not meet the definition of new, privately-owned housing units (e.g., the units were intended as group quarters, for
commercial use, etc.).
4 The Census Bureau conducts the SOC. For more information about this survey, see
https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/about_the_surveys/soc.html.
2
estimates of non-permitted construction are regional-level data that we distribute to all places that do
not receive building permits, based on each place’s share of the region’s total housing units enumerated
in the 2020 Census. For example, if a place contained 5 percent of the region’s housing units as of the
2020 Census and does not issue building permits, we distribute 5 percent of the region’s non-permitted
units in the SOC to that place. There is no lag time applied to the estimates of non-permitted
construction. The sampling frame for the SOC does not include any non-permitting areas in the West;
therefore, we do not distribute non-permitted housing units to places in that region.
New Mobile Homes
The data we use to create estimates of new mobile homes come from the Manufactured Homes Survey
(MHS). 5 We calculate annual mobile home estimates by compiling monthly state shipment data from
July of the previous year through June of the current year. For example, the July 1, 2021 mobile home
estimates are based on mobile home shipment data from July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021. We
distribute the state-level mobile home estimates to each place within the state based on each place’s
share of the state’s total mobile homes. To do so, we use information from the most recent ACS 5-year
file on “type of structure” for housing units.
Housing Unit Loss
Estimates of housing unit loss are computed by applying an annual loss rate to the housing stock. Then,
we add to that an estimate of the number of units lost due to natural disasters. Housing loss rates are
derived from the 2009 and 2011 American Housing Survey (AHS) 6 at the regional level. A unit is counted
as lost if a survey was completed in 2009, but it was listed as a non-response (Type C, 30 – Demolished)
in the 2011 survey.
The housing loss rates vary by type and age of structure, which are obtained from the 2010 American
Community Survey (ACS) single-year file. Housing units fall under one of three types: houses (including
apartments and flats), mobile homes, or other types of housing units. The housing loss rates are as follows:
Table 1. Housing Unit Loss Rates by Region, Type, and Age

Loss Rate (Units Lost/1,000 Units)
Type of Unit
Northeast Midwest South West
House, Apartment/Flat
10 years or less 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
11 to 30 years 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37
31 to 59 years 0.40 1.31 2.57 0.54
60 or more years 0.75 3.68 6.85 0.64
Mobile Homes 8.74 4.08 3.64 1.80
Other Housing Units 7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 The Census Bureau conducts the MHS. For more information about this survey, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/mhs.html.
6 The Census Bureau conducts the AHS. For more information about this survey, see http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ahs/.
7 “Other Housing Units” include boats, recreational vehicles, and other types of housing arrangements.
3
The rates of loss for units less than 10 years old is too small for us to estimate with confidence with the
data we have available; therefore, we assume that the rate is zero. We also assume that the “Other
Housing Units” are constantly functional and, since we have no growth component for this category, a
loss rate of zero seems appropriate.
Numeric estimates of loss are then calculated by applying the above rates to the base file as it is aged to
the current vintage year. The base file is given type and age of structure characteristics by applying
distributions calculated from the 2010 ACS single-year file. After aging the base from April 1, 2020 to July
1, 2020, the process iterates annually and units increase in age by 1 year at each iteration.
Natural disaster loss estimates are calculated using FEMA’s (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
records on requests for disaster assistance. These data are gathered as individuals affected by a natural
disaster apply for assistance from the federal government. FEMA includes information on the severity of
the damage a housing structure endured and its location, listing both street address and coordinates.
Housing units identified as complete losses are tallied as units lost to a natural disaster. Their associated
coordinates (longitude/latitude) are used to geocode them to the appropriate geography. The
geocoding is updated each year to reflect annual changes to the geographic base.
July 1, 2020 Housing Unit Estimates
We use one quarter of the 2020 permitted and non-permitted construction, mobile homes, and housing
loss to produce the July 1, 2020 estimates. This represents the change in housing stock during the three-
month period from April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2020.
REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES
The preliminary housing unit estimates are distributed for review to members of the FSCPE. Some FSCPE
members provide revisions to the estimates in the form of alternative housing component data based
on information they compile from the jurisdictions within their respective states. Alternative housing
component data include local building permits, mobile home placements, demolitions, and housing
completions derived from non-permitted construction, certificates of occupancy and housing
conversions. We review submissions from FSCPE members, and those that are accepted replace the
original housing component data for those jurisdictions.
ESTIMATES CHALLENGE AND SPECIAL CENSUS REVISIONS
Localities that challenge the Census Bureau’s subcounty population estimates have the option of revising the
housing component data specific to their area. 8 These revisions are included in the final housing unit
estimates. The final estimates may also include other changes due to revisions that occur outside the
component estimation framework and are the result of special censuses9 for full jurisdictions. Special census
revisions are reflected in the estimates from July 1, 2020 to July 1 of the year following the special census.
8 For a list of accepted subcounty population challenges, see https://www.census.gov/programs-

surveys/popest/about/challenge-program/results.html.
9 Special Census Program results are available at
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/specialcensus/data_products/official_counts.html. For a list of accepted special census results

incorporated into previous series of population estimates, see https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/special-census.html.
4
Exhibit C
Case
15 CFR Part 2:22-cv-12205-RHC-APP
90 (up to date as of 8/02/2022) ECF No. 1-3, PageID.46 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 4
15 CFR Part 90
Procedure for Challenging Population Estimates
This content is from the eCFR and is authoritative but unofficial.
Title 15 - Commerce and Foreign Trade

Subtitle B - Regulations Relating to Commerce and Foreign Trade
Chapter I - Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce
Part 90 Procedure for Challenging Population Estimates

§ 90.1 Scope and applicability.
§ 90.2 Policy of the Census Bureau.
§ 90.3 Definitions.
§ 90.4 General.
§ 90.5 Who may file a challenge.
§ 90.6 When a challenge may be filed.
§ 90.7 Where to file a challenge.
§ 90.8 Evidence required.
§ 90.9 Review of challenge.
PART 90 - PROCEDURE FOR CHALLENGING POPULATION

ESTIMATES
Authority: 13 U.S.C. 4 and 181.
Source: 78 FR 259, Jan. 3, 2013, unless otherwise noted.
Effective Date Note: At 85 FR 1101, Jan. 9, 2020, part 90 was stayed indefinitely, effective Jan. 9, 2020.
§ 90.1 Scope and applicability.

Between decennial censuses, the Census Bureau annually prepares statistical estimates of the number of people
residing in states and their governmental units. In general, these estimates are developed by updating the
population counts produced in the most recent decennial census with demographic components of change data
and/or other indicators of population change. These rules prescribe the administrative procedure available to
governmental units to request a challenge to the most current of these estimates.
§ 90.2 Policy of the Census Bureau.

It is the policy of the Census Bureau to provide the most accurate population estimates possible given the
constraints of time, money, and available statistical techniques. It is also the policy of the Census Bureau to provide
governmental units the opportunity to seek a review and provide additional data to these estimates and to present
evidence relating to the accuracy of the estimates.
15 CFR 90.2 (enhanced display) page 1 of 3

Case
15 CFR 90.3
§ 90.3 Definitions.
As used in this part (except where the context clearly indicates otherwise) the following definitions shall apply:
(a) Census Bureau means the U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Commerce.
(b) Population Estimates Challenge means, in accordance with this part, the process a governmental unit may
use to provide additional input data for the Census Bureau's population estimate and the submission of
substantive documentation in support thereof.
(c) Director means Director of the Census Bureau, or an individual designated by the Director to perform
under this part.
(d) Population estimate means a statistically developed calculation of the number of people living in a
governmental unit to update the preceding census or earlier estimate.
(e) A governmental unit means the government of a county, municipality, township, incorporated place, or
other minor civil division, which is a unit of general-purpose government below the State.
(f) A non-functioning county or statistical equivalent means a sub-state entity that does not function as an
active general-purpose governmental unit. This situation exists in Connecticut, Rhode Island, for selected
counties in Massachusetts, and for the Census Areas in Alaska.
(g) For the purposes of this program, an eligible governmental unit also includes the District of Columbia and
non-functioning counties or statistical equivalents represented by a FSCPE member agency.
§ 90.4 General.
This part provides a procedure for a governmental unit to request a challenge of a population estimate of the
Census Bureau. The Census Bureau, upon receipt of the appropriate documentation, will attempt to resolve the
estimate with the governmental unit.
§ 90.5 Who may file a challenge.

A request for a challenge of a population estimate generated by the Census Bureau may be filed only by the chief
executive officer or highest elected official of a governmental unit. In those instances where the FSCPE member
agency represents a non-functioning county or statistical equivalent, the governor will serve as the chief executive
officer or highest elected official.
§ 90.6 When a challenge may be filed.

(a) A request for a challenge to a population estimate may be filed any time up to 90 days after the release of
the estimate by the Census Bureau. Publication by the Census Bureau on its Web site (www.census.gov)
shall constitute release. Documentation requesting a challenge of any estimate may also be filed any time
up to 90 days after the date the Census Bureau, on its own initiative, revises that estimate.
(b) If, however, a governmental unit has a sufficiently meritorious reason for not filing in a timely manner, the
Census Bureau has the discretion to accept the late request.
15 CFR 90.6(b) (enhanced display) page 2 of 3

Case
15 CFR 90.7
§ 90.7 Where to file a challenge.

A request for a population estimate challenge must be prepared in writing by the governmental unit and filed with
the Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau, Room 5H174, Mail Stop 8800, Washington, DC 20233. The
governmental unit must designate a contact person who can be reached by telephone during normal business
hours should questions arise with regard to the submitted materials.
§ 90.8 Evidence required.

(a) The governmental unit shall provide whatever evidence it has relevant to the request at the time of filing.
The Census Bureau may request further evidence when necessary. The evidence submitted must be
consistent with the criteria, standards, and regular processes the Census Bureau employs to generate the
population estimate. The Census Bureau has revised the challenge process to no longer accept estimates
developed from methods different from those used by the Census Bureau. In the revised challenge
process, the Census Bureau will only accept a challenge when the evidence provided identifies the use of
incorrect data, processes, or calculations in the estimates.
(b) For counties and statistical equivalents, the Census Bureau uses a cohort-component of change method
to produce population estimates. Each year, the components of change are updated. These components
include births, deaths, migration, and change in the group quarters population. The Census Bureau will
consider a challenge based on additional information on one or more of the components of change or
about the group quarters population in a locality.
(c) For minor civil divisions and incorporated places, the Census Bureau uses a housing unit method to
distribute the county population. The components in this method include housing units, occupancy rates,
and persons per household plus an estimate of the population in group quarters. The Census Bureau will
consider a challenge based on data related to changes in an area's housing stock, such as data on
demolitions, condemned units, uninhabitable units, building permits, or mobile home placements or other
comparable housing inventory based data. The Census Bureau will also consider a challenge based on
additional information about the group quarters population in a locality.
(d) The Census Bureau will also provide a guide on its Web site as a reference for governmental units to use
in developing their data as evidence to support a challenge to the population estimate. In addition, a
governmental unit may address any additional questions by contacting the Census Bureau at the address
provided in § 90.7.
§ 90.9 Review of challenge.

The Chief, Population Division, Census Bureau, or the Chief's designee shall review the evidence provided with the
request for the population estimate challenge, shall work with the governmental unit to verify the data provided by
the governmental unit, and evaluate the data to resolve the issues raised by the governmental unit. Thereafter, the
Census Bureau shall respond in writing with a decision to accept or deny the challenge. In the event that the Census
Bureau finds that the population estimate should be updated, it will also post the revised estimate on the Census
Bureau's Web site (www.census.gov).
15 CFR 90.9 (enhanced display) page 3 of 3

Exhibit D
Exhibit E
August 3, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Population Estimates Program

Attn: Dr. Christine Hartley, Assistant Division Chief for Estimates and Population
United States Census Bureau
4600 Silver Hill Road
HQ 6H473
Mail Stop 8800
Washington, D.C. 20233
Pop.challenge@census.gov
Christine.hartley@census.gov
Re: City of Detroit Vintage 2021 Population Estimate – Request for Derivation Sheet
To the Census Bureau Population Estimates Staff – Attn. Dr. Christine Hartley:
Pursuant to the Census Bureau Review Guide for the Population Estimates Challenge
Program, issued May 2013, updated February 2020 (the “Review Guide”), as the Highest Elected
Official of the City of Detroit (“Detroit” or the “City”), I write to “request a derivation sheet
containing the components used to create the population estimate”1 for Detroit for the vintage 2021
estimate of the City’s population, which was released by the Bureau on May 26, 2022.
Please provide the derivation sheet showing the population estimate (as of July 1, 2021)
and associated components via email to dugganm@detroitmi.gov and steint@detroitmi.gov.
Please contact me if you have any questions related to this request. The City looks forward to
receiving the derivation sheet.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael E. Duggan, Mayor
1
Review Guide at 9.

City of Detroit Lawsuit Challenging 2021 Census Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

City of Detroit Lawsuit Challenging 2021 Census Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

City of Detroit Lawsuit Challenging 2021 Census Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:22-cv-12205-RHC-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 35

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE CITY OF DETROIT,

CITY OF DETROIT FINK BRESSACK

1. Tens of thousands of Detroiters were uncounted in the Census Bureau’s

2021 estimate of the City’s population.

2. By the Bureau’s own admission, it has undercounted the nation’s Black

non-Hispanic White population by 1.64%.

3. In Detroit, which has a 77.1% Black population and a 7.7% Hispanic

uncounted in the 2020 Census.

4. Yet, when the Bureau estimated Detroit’s population as of July 1, 2021,

Bureau reduced Detroit’s population by an additional 7,150 people compared to the

April 1, 2020 census count.

5. In fact, the best available evidence—including Postal Service records,

6. Notwithstanding its own acknowledgement of a racially-biased

7. Historically, Census Bureau regulations allowed municipalities to

submit evidence to correct inaccuracies in the annual population estimates.

8. On January 9, 2020, the Department of Commerce and Census Bureau

promulgated a rule temporarily suspending this “Population Estimates Challenge

concludes its responsibilities in the conduct of the decennial census.”

“[t]he program is expected to resume in 2023.”

secret formula used to calculate the Bureau’s distorted population estimate.

11. Absent judicial intervention, Detroit is without recourse to correct this

racially-biased 2021 population undercount because the Commerce Department and

the Census Bureau refuse to abide by their own promulgated rule.

12. The Bureau’s failure to consider evidence of its inaccurate 2021

narrative that Detroit is losing population.

of Detroit’s population is wrong—in direct violation of its own administrative rule—

perpetuates racial inequality, and disproportionately harms Detroit and its

14. Plaintiff City of Detroit (“Detroit” or the “City”) is a municipal

among the 50 largest cities in the United States.

15. Defendant United States Department of Commerce is an executive

16. Defendant Gina M. Raimondo is the Secretary of Commerce and is

sued in her official capacity. In addition to Congress’ delegation of authority for

conducting the decennial census to the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary is

decennial census. 13 U.S.C. §§ 141(a), 181(a).

sued in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1346(a)(2), and 1361.

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq.

21. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and

The Census Bureau Admits that it Undercounts Detroit’s Minority Population

Enumeration Survey (“PES”) and Demographic Analysis Estimates (“DA”) about

the quality of the 2020 Census count.2

undercounted or overcounted. According to the Census Bureau, “[w]hile the two

a more inclusive picture of who was counted in the 2020 Census.”

African American population, the American Indian or Alaska Native population

being of Some Other Race.”

25. Specifically, PES data show that in the 2020 Census:

• The Black or African American alone or in combination population had

• The Hispanic or Latino population had a statistically significant

• The non-Hispanic White alone population had a statistically significant

overcount rate of 1.64%.

public, Census Director Santos acknowledged: “the 2020 Census undercounted

many of the same population groups that we have historically undercounted”

undercount of Detroit’s population using the Census Bureau’s own measures.