US Supreme Court. Census Data. Analisi di Amy Howe sullo ScotusBlog.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2020-12-03.

Come nostra abitudine, riportiamo senza commento alcuno l’accluso documento ufficiale, in quanto pubblicato sul Blog della Suprema Corte.

*

---

Scotus Blog. Argument analysis: Justices seem inclined to put off ruling on merits of Trump’s plan for census data

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in Trump v. New York, the challenge to the Trump administration’s plan to exclude people who are in the United States illegally from the state-by-state breakdown used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives. The stakes are high in the case: If the justices allow the administration to implement the plan before it leaves office in January, states with large immigrant populations could lose political power, while states with fewer immigrants could gain it. After over 90 minutes of debate, several justices seemed skeptical of the legality of President Donald Trump’s plan. But they spent relatively little time on that topic, focusing instead on whether the Supreme Court could or should weigh in now, and by the end it seemed very possible that they may not resolve the merits of the case immediately – if at all.

The Constitution requires a census every 10 years to determine the population of the United States, which is then used to allocate the seats in the House of Representatives. Federal law outlines the process by which that occurs. The secretary of commerce, to whom Congress has delegated the power to carry out the census, provides the president with a report containing “the tabulation of total population by States.” The president then sends a report to Congress that contains “the whole number of persons in each State,” along with “the number of Representatives to which each State would be entitled.”

Throughout U.S. history, the population numbers used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives have included everyone living in each state, regardless of their immigration status. In July 2020, however, Trump announced that the total population used to determine the number of seats for each state would not include people who are in the country illegally. In a memorandum to Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross, Trump asked for two numbers for each state: the total population as determined by the 2020 census; and the total population, subtracting – “to the extent practicable” – people who are living in the country without authorization. The second number would be used as the “base” to allocate seats in the House.

A group of state and local governments, led by New York, went to federal court to challenge the new policy, as did a group of nonprofits that work with immigrant communities. The challengers argued that the memorandum violated both the Constitution and federal law, and a special three-judge district court agreed. When the district court blocked the Trump administration from implementing the policy, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in October to expedite its review due to a looming Dec. 31 statutory deadline for Ross to send the census report to Trump.

Arguing on behalf of the administration, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall told the justices that there was still “substantial uncertainty” about the extent to which the Census Bureau would actually be able to identify how many people are in the United States without authorization. Therefore, he suggested, the court should avoid any substantive ruling right now and simply wipe the lower court’s decision from the books. That would allow the president, based on whatever data is available, to implement the policy as described in the July memorandum. Then, if the policy ultimately caused any states to lose House seats – an outcome that is not certain – the challengers could return to court to litigate the legality of the policy. But for now, Wall said, the challengers’ claim is too speculative.

Justice Samuel Alito told Wall that he found the posture of the case “quite frustrating,” noting that the eventual impact of excluding people who are not in the country legally from the populating base could range from significant to “much ado about very little.” There are an estimated 10.5 million people in the United States illegally, Alito observed, which could have a real effect on the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, Alito continued, one group of noncitizens that the administration has been able to identify with some degree of certainty is the 60,000 people in Immigrations and Customs Enforcement detention – a number that is much less likely to change the allocation of seats. With only 31 days left in the year, Alito asked Wall, is there any realistic possibility that the Census Bureau will be able to exclude all 10.5 million people?

Wall agreed that it was unlikely that the Census Bureau would be able to identify all of the people in the United States without authorization in time to exclude them from the population base used for apportionment. He blamed the uncertainty on the fact that the challengers had brought their lawsuit before the seats had been allocated.

Other justices seemed sympathetic to Wall’s suggestion that the lawsuits had come too soon. Justice Brett Kavanaugh stressed that Wall was not contending that the justices should never consider the challengers’ claims; instead, Wall was simply urging the justices to put off deciding them now. Kavanaugh later observed that two different doctrines could weigh against deciding the case now: the standing doctrine, which requires an actual controversy involving a concrete injury, and the ripeness doctrine, which forbids lawsuits that are filed prematurely or are based on hypothetical future harm. The two doctrines are “identical” for purposes of this case, Kavanaugh said, because the president’s memorandum doesn’t require the challengers to do anything right now.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett echoed this point. She asked Barbara Underwood, New York’s solicitor general, whether it might be better for the justices to wait to see what categories of noncitizens – for example, people in ICE detention, people in the country illegally who have committed crimes or people who have received final orders for deportation – the president ultimately decides to exclude from the population base.

Other justices, however, were more skeptical about Wall’s assertion that it would be hard for the Census Bureau to identify and exclude large numbers of people in the United States without authorization. Justice Sonia Sotomayor reminded Wall that the president had asked for information about everyone who is in the country illegally, and she told Wall that the Census Bureau has been working to collect data from other agencies for over a year. “I don’t see how you can represent to us that you don’t think it’s going to be a large number,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Elena Kagan agreed. She asked Wall to explain the uncertainty, noting that the government already had the names of 700,000 noncitizens who had received relief from deportation under the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, as well as approximately 3.2 million people who are in deportation proceedings but are not in custody. “We can get easily to four to five million people for whom you have administrative records,” Kagan emphasized.

Underwood and Dale Ho, who argued on behalf of the nonprofit groups, told the justices that there is a substantial risk that the challengers will be injured by the memorandum’s direction to exclude people in the country illegally from the population base. The difference of a few thousand people in one state can mean the difference between gaining and losing a seat in the House of Representatives, Ho reminded the justices.

Underwood and Ho seemed to concede that a delay of a few weeks, to determine what categories of noncitizens the president might ultimately exclude from the population base, would not be “disruptive.” But they strongly resisted any suggestion that the court should dismiss the case and make them wait until after the apportionment of seats in the House has occurred to challenge the exclusion of people who are in the country without authorization. Ho told the justices that having to relitigate the case after apportionment would be “very disruptive” to the states’ redistricting process.

During the relatively brief time that the justices did spend on the question of whether the memorandum violates the Constitution or federal law, several justices seemed to agree with the challengers that it does. Barrett told Wall that much of the historical evidence “really cuts against your position,” and she later observed that someone who has been in the country for 20 years, even if here without authorization, would likely have a settled residence here.

For his part, Kavanaugh suggested to Underwood that the challengers had advanced “forceful” constitutional and statutory arguments that the president could not exclude everyone who is in the country illegally from the population base. But both Kavanaugh and Barrett broached the possibility that the president could issue a new memorandum that excluded only some categories of noncitizens from the population base. Ho pushed back, telling the justices that even the narrower categories – such as noncitizens in ICE detention centers – were still too broad, and he indicated that the challengers and the courts would likely have to litigate the legality of such a memorandum later.

In his rebuttal, Wall urged the justices to decide the case quickly, noting that the process of sending information to the president and then to Congress is “all going to happen on an extremely compressed timeline in January.” However, it wasn’t at all certain that there were five votes on the court to follow Wall’s proposed path.

Chief Justice John Roberts began the argument by asking Wall whether the Trump administration still needs a decision by Dec. 31, when Ross is supposed to send the census report to the president. That deadline, Roberts observed, was the reason why the Supreme Court had fast-tracked the Trump administration’s appeal.

Wall responded that the administration is “not on pace” to send the report to the president by Dec. 31 but hopes to deliver at least some data to the president in January. It’s not clear what effect, if any, that answer will have on the court’s timetable for issuing a decision in the case.

Kavanaugh. Ecco quale potrebbe essere la sua prima pratica.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-12.

«Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem » Ulpiano, Digesta, I, 4, 1 pr.

---

«CNN’s ‘Reality Check’ aired a segment this morning that clearly shows the Trump administration lied when they said a controversial census question was requested by the DOJ.

When Wilbur Ross was asked why the Trump administration tried to twist the U.S. census for its own redistricting purposes, he said it was a request initiated by the Department of Justice.

Ross told the House Ways and Means Committee that the Justice Department “initiated the request for inclusion of the citizenship question.” Speaking in front of a House Appropriations subcommittee he said that the Commerce Department was “responding solely to the Department of Justice’s request” and that the Justice Department was “the one who made the request.”

Reality Check host John Avlon was quick to show the “new evidence” that clearly shows Ross’ lie.

“Newly revealed documents show that Wilbur Ross was trying to pull that off. When the Trump administration proposed adding a question about citizenship, the controversy was as swift as it was predictable,” he said.

“They are supposed to count everybody that lives in our country, regardless of their status, and critics say the goal was to undercount non-citizens. They have a clear record of taking hardline positions against undocumented residents and their children. Not so, said Team Trump. They said it was being added back to the Census for the first time since 1950 because the Justice Department needed it to help the Voting Rights Act.”» [Hill Reporter]

* * * * * * *

Vediamo un po’ se riuscite ad individuare quale potrebbe essere una delle prime pratiche costituzionali che sarà giudicata da Sua Giustizia Kavanaugh, nell’attesa che i liberal democratici vincano midterm, lo mettano sotto impeachment ed infine lo brucino sulla spianata del Campigoglio.

Sommarizziamo il problema in modo molto drastico, non se ne vogliano i giuristi, ma qui il problema è solo quello di farsi capire bene. Poi, quanti vorranno, troveranno letteratura a iosa.

*

Sostanzialmente negli Stati Uniti non esiste un documento di riconoscimento equivalente alla nostra carta di identità. Non solo, ogni stato componente la federazione ha delle sue proprie leggi ed anche una sua costituzione.

In linea generale, per poter votare è necessario registrarsi di volta in volta presso un apposito ufficio, dichiarando il proprio nome e cognome. È la registrazione che permette di accedere all’urna elettorale.

Sul problema del voter Id è incorso da decenni una bega galattica, che richiede una laurea apposita in tale materia.

Se tutti a parole convengono che il voter Id sarebbe cosa utile. Ben pochi lo vogliono. I liberal democratici lo aborriscono: dicono sia incostituzionale, discriminerebbe le femmine e farebbe venire la podagra.

Il motivo è semplice.

Il numero dei deputati al Congresso spettanti ad ogni stato sono computati sul numero dei registrati. In realtà il meccanismo è più complesso, ma così si capisce meglio. Maggiore è il loro numero, maggiore è il numero dei deputati da eleggere.

Stati come la California, rigorosamente liberal, hanno quindi proceduto all’importazione su scala industriale di immigrati clandestini ed illegali, che tutelano e proteggono come la pupilla degli occhi, perché vanno a farsi registrare, magari diverse volte con nome fantasia, e votano uniti e compatti i propri benefattori. Tanto, a mantenerli ci pensa il Governo federale.

California. 12% della popolazione e 33% sotto soglia povertà.

California ricca e democratica. Emergono brogli elettorali.

*

Al momento attuale il problema non è risolvibile da un punto di vista legale, ma i repubblicani hanno aguzzato l’ingegno.

Vorrebbero inserire nel prossimo modulo per il censimento la domanda  se si sia o meno cittadini americani. Y/N. Apparentemente sembrerebbe essere una domanda non indiscreta.

Ufficialmente infatti alle votazioni dovrebbero poter partecipare solo i cittadini americani.

In questa evenienza, la cittadinanza di ogni individuo resterebbe scritta di suo proprio pugno, per gli ulteriori controlli.

Non solo.

Dalla elaborazione di questi dati emergerebbe alla fine un dato quasi certo sul numero dei deputati che spetterebbero ad ogni singolo stato.

*

Gran brutto scherzo per i liberal democratici californiani, e non solo californiani, che si vedrebbero dimezzato il numero di seggi disponibili nei distretti ove regnano sovrani.

Stime fatte allo spannometro, data la carenza di dati ufficiali, indicherebbero ad oltre una decina di milioni i votanti taroccati. Tutti rigorosamente liberal.

Adesso vi sono gli elementi per poter meglio comprendere l’articolo allegato.

«Il primo caso che Brett Kavanaugh potrebbe trovarsi ad affrontare alla Corte Suprema potrebbe riguardare l’amministrazione Trump»

*

«Secondo quanto riportato dai media americani, il Dipartimento di Giustizia si appresta a rivolgersi alla Corte per chiedere che vengano bloccate le deposizioni del segretario al commercio Wilbur Ross e del responsabile dei diritti civili del Dipartimento guidato da Jeff Sessions»

*

«Deposizioni che sono state richieste da un giudice federale di New York nell’ambito dell’azione legale contro la decisione di Ross di inserire una domanda sulla cittadinanza nel censimento per il 2020»

* * * * * * * *

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

Manco a dirlo, Mr Schneiderman è un liberal democratico, strenuo difensore di tutte le verginelle conturbate dal fatto che qualcuno aveva ammirato i loro glutei, cosa terrificante specie poi se non fossero stati ricchi da ricattare, mentre poi Mr. Schneiderman usava la sua posizione di procuratore generale per degustarsi in santa pace tutte le pulzelle che gli fossero capitate tra le grinfie. Ma aveva anche un abile procacciatore di carnina fresca.

Bloomberg accusato di stipendiare assistenti dei PG con fondi per il ‘clima’.

* * * * * * * *

Adesso la Suprema Corte deciderà secondo costituzione, diritto e giustizia, ossia condannerà le tesi sostenute dai liberal democratici. E così sarà per almeno trenta anni.

---

→ Ansa. 2018-10-08. Kavanaugh: primo caso forse su Trump

NEW YORK, 8 OTT – Il primo caso che Brett Kavanaugh potrebbe trovarsi ad affrontare alla Corte Suprema potrebbe riguardare l’amministrazione Trump. Secondo quanto riportato dai media americani, il Dipartimento di Giustizia si appresta a rivolgersi alla Corte per chiedere che vengano bloccate le deposizioni del segretario al commercio Wilbur Ross e del responsabile dei diritti civili del Dipartimento guidato da Jeff Sessions. Deposizioni che sono state richieste da un giudice federale di New York nell’ambito dell’azione legale contro la decisione di Ross di inserire una domanda sulla cittadinanza nel censimento per il 2002. Il Dipartimento di Giustizia ritiene le deposizioni un’intrusione nell’autorità esecutiva in grado di distrarre l’attenzione dei funzionari dell’amministrazione dai loro compiti.

Trump. Questa settimana inizia in Senato la verifica delle nomine.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-01-09.

Il Senato americano sta iniziando a vagliare le nomine proposte dal Presidente-eletto Mr Trump, come da dettame costituzionale.

La rabbia furibonda dei liberals americani è più che mai evidente.

Ciascuno dei personaggi in causa è uno strenuo oppositore di ciò che essi hanno fatto nei passati otto anni di legislazione Obama.

Dovrebbe essere cosa naturale che il nuovo eletto rinnovi e muti le linee politiche: è quello che usualmente è denominato essere il gioco democratico.

Ma a dispetto del nome che si sono dati, “democratici“, i liberals hanno ben poco di democratico: sono e restano nell’anima dei rivoluzionari.

Ma la rivoluzione altro non è che un colpo di forza di una minoranza nei confronti di un potere legalmente costituito.

Per farla in breve, i democratici si sentono colpiti non tanto in questioni di differente visione politica, quanto piuttosto nella loro Weltanschauung.

«They can delay the process, they can’t stop it. My question to them is what is the purpose for delay because they can’t stop it»

*

«Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State: Democrats will focus on his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and whether Tillerson can put U.S. interests first after a 40-year career focused on boosting Exxon’s shareholder value …. Tillerson has spoken out against sanctions. …. Democrats also plan to question him for hints that he would seek to overturn the Paris climate agreement to limit carbon emissions»

*

«Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services: Price is a leading opponent of Obamacare and will be questioned about his plan to repeal and replace it …. Price is also an abortion opponent and will likely be asked about his votes to cut federal funds to Planned Parenthood»

*

«Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator: He joined 26 other attorneys general in suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan»

*

«Jeff Sessions, Attorney General: the four-term senator will face questions on his opposition to legal status for undocumented immigrants, especially those brought here as children and granted work permits by President Barack Obama»

*

Queste quattro nomine sono recepite dai liberals democratici come veri e propri atti di guerra, essendo il loro incarico di smantellare accuratamente tutto ciò che il Presidente Obama abbia fatto negli otto anni di Casa Bianca.

È una questione di stile il saper perdere.

---

→ Bloomberg. 2017-01-09. Nine Trump Nominees Who’ll Face Extreme Vetting by Democrats

– Senate confirmation hearings for nominees start this week

– Democrats lack votes to halt nominees under 52-48 GOP majority

*

A marathon of Senate confirmation hearings starting this week will give Democrats the chance to put Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees on trial even though they have little chance of actually blocking any of them.

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer is in talks with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on the full scope of the hearings — demanding, among other things, full paperwork in advance and at least two days of hearings on eight of the most troublesome nominees for Democrats.

A ninth candidate — Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, picked to become attorney general — will also face heavy fire but isn’t on Schumer’s list.

Another candidate who may face close questioning is retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who sought the GOP presidential nomination before backing Trump, chosen to lead the Department of Housing and Urban development. Carson has never held elected office and Democrats have questioned whether he has experience in dealing with housing issues.

All of Trump’s picks are expected to win confirmation, barring unexpected revelations or major gaffes. Republicans — with a 52-48 majority — ultimately control whether any nominees will be rejected after Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold in 2013. But Schumer asserted that Democrats still have procedural leverage, something Republican leaders acknowledge.

“They can delay the process, they can’t stop it,” said John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican. “My question to them is what is the purpose for delay because they can’t stop it.”

The Senate committees’ scheduling of hearings for nominees who haven’t completed an ethics review required by federal law is a “great concern,” Walter Shaub, head of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, said in a letter released Saturday.

“It has left some of the nominees with potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues shortly before their scheduled hearings,” Shaub said in response to a request for information about the reviews by Schumer and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Shaub didn’t identify which candidates’ reviews were incomplete.

One of Democrats’ top goals is to highlight splits between the nominees and Trump’s populist message and campaign rhetoric. Here are the eight picks that Schumer’s office cited as the most troublesome for Democrats, along with Sessions:

Rex Tillerson, Secretary of State

Tillerson, who stepped down as chief executive officer of Exxon Mobil Corp. upon his nomination, comes from outside the foreign policy establishment but has the backing of some of its biggest names, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who first floated his name to Trump in November.

Democrats will focus on his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and whether Tillerson can put U.S. interests first after a 40-year career focused on boosting Exxon’s shareholder value. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle want to impose new sanctions on Russia for its election-related computer hacking that U.S. intelligence agencies said was ordered by Putin. Tillerson has spoken out against sanctions.

Democrats also plan to question him for hints that he would seek to overturn the Paris climate agreement to limit carbon emissions. Tillerson has spoken favorably of the accord and has acknowledged that emissions will have a “warming impact,” though he has said poverty is a bigger immediate problem. They will also look for possible conflicts in his financial disclosures: Tillerson reported assets of up to $400 million and said he’ll receive a cash payout of $180 million from Exxon.

Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of Treasury

The former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. partner profited from the 2007-2008 housing market crash when he and a group of investors bought a failed mortgage lender later renamed OneWest Bank. It was accused of unfair practices when Mnuchin was chief executive, such as backdating mortgage documents to speed foreclosures, manipulating the results of home auctions and avoiding business in minority neighborhoods. Democrats labeled him the “foreclosure king” in a website they created to seek examples of OneWest’s aggressive practices.

A political advocacy group called Allied Progress is running television ads targeting Republican senators in Arizona and Nevada, whose constituents had high foreclosure rates after the subprime mortgage crisis. The ad calls on Senators Jeff Flake of Arizona and Dean Heller of Nevada, who sits on the Finance Committee in charge of vetting Mnuchin, to vote against his confirmation. Both face re-election in 2018.

Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce

Ross would be one of the most seasoned former business leaders on Trump’s economic team. As a private-equity investor, he restructured companies across a range of industries including steel, banking and textiles. Bloomberg values his fortune at $2.9 billion. But Ross’s private-equity background opens him to the same line of attack Mitt Romney faced when he ran for president in 2012 — that he was a corporate raider who flipped companies for profit while firing employees. The Center For American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, says his massive business holdings represent a major conflict of interest.

Ross is accused in a lawsuit of wrongfully seizing $3.6 million belonging to a former assistant vice president at WL Ross & Co. Joseph Mullin, in a federal lawsuit filed Dec. 30 in New York, claims his former boss pocketed private-equity fund profits and interest that rightfully belonged to him. In May, David Storper, a founding member of the firm, sued claiming Ross wrongfully withheld more than $800,000 from him.

Tom Price, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Price, the House Budget Committee chairman until his nomination, will face questions from Democrats on his trades in health-care stocks while handling legislation that could affect the shares. Watchdog group Public Citizen says he made 630 trades in about 40 companies starting in 2012 while he led the Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee’s health panel.

Price is a leading opponent of Obamacare and will be questioned about his plan to repeal and replace it. His proposal in May 2015 focused on providing tax credits to buy insurance, expanding health savings accounts and revising medical malpractice laws. Price is also an abortion opponent and will likely be asked about his votes to cut federal funds to Planned Parenthood.

Mick Mulvaney, Office of Management and Budget

Mulvaney, chosen to shepherd Trump’s budget proposals through the legislative process, was elected to the House from South Carolina as part of the Tea Party wave of 2010. He’s a founding member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, which pushed to shut down the government in 2015 rather than continue funding Planned Parenthood, helping prompt former House Speaker John Boehner’s resignation.

Critics say Mulvaney’s opposition to raising the debt limit without accompanying spending cuts risks the nation defaulting on some of its debts and rattling markets. Mulvaney also voted against an emergency relief bill following Hurricane Sandy by insisting that the $50.7 billion be offset by other spending cuts, earning the ire of members of both parties.

Andy Puzder, Secretary of Labor

Puzder, chief executive of the company that owns the Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. burger chains, opposes the Obama administration rule that would expand the number of workers eligible for overtime pay, and its proposal to increase the minimum wage to $10.10. Democrats are expected to cast findings of wage violations at Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. restaurants, and the disparity in pay for Puzder and his employees, as emblematic of a Trump presidency that will favor wealthy elites despite his populist message.

Some Hardee’s and Carl’s Jr. locations are shifting to touch-screen kiosks, requiring fewer employees behind the counter, a move Puzder said was prompted by what he called ill-advised government policies and taxes.

In a July opinion article, Puzder said legal immigration is an asset to the U.S. and that it would be “unworkable” to deport the 11 million undocumented immigrants. But he said Trump’s proposal to build a border wall was reasonable because the public demands action.

Scott Pruitt, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator

Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general since 2010, is a staunch ally of the oil industry and chief foe of the Obama administration’s climate agenda. He joined 26 other attorneys general in suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan, which he called an affront to states’ rights. Pruitt also helped get a court order blocking an EPA rule that expands the scope of the Clean Water Act, and he’s been critical of U.S. biofuel mandates, describing current policy as “unworkable.”

Democrats are expected to scrutinize Pruitt’s ties to the oil and gas industry. In 2014, the New York Times reported that energy lobbyists had drafted letters for Pruitt to send to the EPA and other agencies challenging environmental rules that could affect the industry.

As state attorney general, he created a state “federalism unit” tasked with fighting “unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government,” according to his website.

Jeff Sessions, Attorney General

Sessions and Schumer are biking buddies in the Senate gym, and it would be exceedingly rare for a sitting senator not to ultimately get confirmed, despite Sessions’ being rejected for a judgeship in the 1980s over racial comments.

In addition to having to address his race-related comments from decades ago, the four-term senator will face questions on his opposition to legal status for undocumented immigrants, especially those brought here as children and granted work permits by President Barack Obama.  He can expect to be grilled on the Voting Rights Act, a key piece of which was struck down by the Supreme Court as outdated; Congress hasn’t updated that section. He also has been targeted by some marijuana advocates who worry he will enforce the federal prohibition in states that have legalized the drug.

Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education

A billionaire and Republican donor, DeVos has spent more than two decades promoting expanded charter schools and taxpayer-funded school vouchers. In her home state of Michigan, she helped shepherd a charter-school sector that has been criticized as lacking quality and appropriate oversight.

She is expected to face questions about $5.3 million in unpaid fines and penalties imposed by Ohio officials over campaign-finance violations by her All Children Matter Political Action Committee in 2008. Democratic senators including Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Tom Udall of New Mexico have demanded she pay the fine. Her confirmation is opposed by the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association.