The Court’s decisions in Trump v. Hawaii and Department of Commerce v. New York suggest an inside-out Constitution, with the Court treating the Constitution’s insiders in ways typically reserved for those outside of the scope of its full protection. The Census 2020 Case, in particular, highlights two important ways that the Court has constructed this inside-out Constitution. First, as discussed in greater detail in Part II, the decision offers a clear picture of how the Court has created almost insurmountable barriers for plaintiffs seeking to challenge White Supremacy through equal protection claims. The fate of the equal protection claim in the Census 2020 Case is a logical sequel to the fate of the First Amendment discrimination claim in the Muslim Exclusion Case, Trump v. Hawaii. Both cases illustrate the near-impossibility of vindicating claims of racial or religious animus against historically disadvantaged groups under existing constitutional antidiscrimination jurisprudence. The Department of Commerce v. New York case also illustrates how the substantive rights claims advanced by parties seeking redress for invidious racial discrimination by the government are increasingly vindicated, if they are vindicated at all, through procedural channels. But even when plaintiffs prevail in their procedural claims, as in the Census 2020 Case, the resulting remedies are no match for the underlying equality harms generated by the challenged policies. Racial animus is whitewashed. The Court never grapples with the identity-based dignity and status harms suffered by non-white plaintiffs as the result of challenged policies. As a practical matter, the Court’s failure to grapple with the equality concerns at stake result is procedural protections much narrower in scope than the underlying threats to equality require. Department of Commerce v. New York not only illustrates this point, but also provides a useful preview of how the Court will analyze the claims raised in Department of Homeland Security v. U.C. Regents.

中文翻译：

---

由内而外的宪法：商务部诉纽约

法院在特朗普诉夏威夷案和商务部诉纽约案中的裁决暗示了一种由内而外的宪法，法院以通常为宪法全面保护范围之外的人保留的方式对待宪法的内部人员。2020 年人口普查案尤其突出了法院构建这部由内而外的宪法的两种重要方式。首先，正如第二部分更详细地讨论的那样，该决定清楚地说明了法院如何为寻求通过平等保护要求挑战白人至上的原告创造了几乎无法逾越的障碍。2020 年人口普查案中平等保护索赔的命运是特朗普诉夏威夷穆斯林排斥案中第一修正案歧视索赔命运的合乎逻辑的续集。这两个案例都说明，在现有的宪法反歧视判例下，几乎不可能证明针对历史上弱势群体的种族或宗教敌意主张是正确的。商务部诉纽约案还说明了为政府令人反感的种族歧视寻求补救的各方提出的实质性权利主张如何通过程序渠道得到越来越多的证明，如果他们得到证明的话。但是，即使原告在其程序性索赔中胜诉，例如在 2020 年人口普查案中，由此产生的补救措施也无法与受到质疑的政策产生的潜在平等损害相匹配。种族仇恨被粉饰了。法院从不应对非白人原告因政策受到质疑而遭受的基于身份的尊严和地位的伤害。实际上，法院未能解决所涉平等问题的结果是程序保护的范围比对平等的潜在威胁所要求的范围要窄得多。商务部诉纽约案不仅说明了这一点，而且还提供了一个有用的预览，说明法院将如何分析在国土安全部诉 UC Regents 案中提出的索赔。