# Utah v. Evans **536 U.S. 452 (2002) · argued Mar. 27, decided June 20, 2002 · opinion by [[Stephen Breyer]]** The Supreme Court upheld the Census Bureau's use of **hot-deck imputation** in the 2000 census. When a housing unit's status could not be resolved (occupied or vacant, and if occupied, by how many people), the Bureau filled the gap from a similar nearby unit. The Court held this is **not** the "statistical sampling" that 13 U.S.C. § 195 bars for apportionment, and that it does not violate the Constitution's "actual Enumeration" requirement. ## The stake: one seat, 856 people Imputation added about **1.2 million** people nationally, roughly **0.4%** of the count. It raised North Carolina's population by 0.4% and Utah's by only 0.2%, and that difference moved the **435th House seat** from Utah to North Carolina. Utah missed the seat by **856 people**. Utah had already lost a first round. Its 2001 suit argued that some 24,000 Latter-day Saint missionaries serving abroad should be counted, as overseas federal employees were. The district court rejected that claim, and the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal in November 2001. The imputation challenge was the second try. ## The votes The judgment was **5–4**, but the Court split differently on each issue: - **Standing:** 8–1. [[Antonin Scalia]] dissented on redressability. - **The § 195 sampling bar:** 7–1 that imputation is not barred. [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] would have held that it is sampling and dissented from that part. - **The Enumeration Clause:** 5–2 that imputation is permitted. [[Clarence Thomas]], joined by [[Anthony Kennedy]], would have held that the Framers' "actual Enumeration" requires an actual count, not an estimate. O'Connor and Scalia did not reach the question. ## The line it draws Read with [[Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives]] (1999), this case sets the operating rule for census method: - **Sampling is barred for apportionment.** Sampling infers a population from a subset. The 1999 case held that § 195 forbids it, and decided the point on statutory grounds only. - **Imputation is allowed.** Imputation fills a specific missing record. It is part of the enumeration, not a substitute for it. That boundary keeps statistical correction for the undercount out of apportionment, while letting the Bureau finish an incomplete count. See [[Census Undercount]]. ## Why it is live again Imputation is back in court: - **The Florida suit.** *USF College Republicans v. Lutnick* (No. 26-205), which includes Rep. [[Byron Donalds]] among its plaintiffs, challenges imputation in Florida's 2020 count. A three-judge court dismissed it on **Aug. 6, 2026** for lack of standing and as time-barred. The appeal was docketed at the Supreme Court on Aug. 18. The petitioners call their case "on all fours" with *Utah v. Evans*. - **The 2030 rule.** The [[2030 Census Residence Rule]] says the Bureau is considering administrative records to determine legal status. That puts *how* missing or uncertain records get filled at the center of the 2030 fight. ## See also - [[How the Census Apportions Congress]] · [[Census Undercount]] · [[Census Bureau]] · [[Title 13]] - [[Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives]] · [[Department of Commerce v. New York]] · [[Trump v. New York]] - [[2020 Census]] · [[2030 Census Residence Rule]] · [[Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929]]