Full opinion text
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION...773 BACKGROUND...775 LEGAL STANDARDS...780 DISCUSSION...780 A. Standing...781 1. Injury-in-Fact...781 2. Traceability...785 3. NGO Plaintiffs' Standing...788 B. The Political Question Doctrine...790 C. The Administrative Procedure Act...793 D. The Enumeration Clause...799 E. The Equal Protection Claim...806 CONCLUSION...811 INTRODUCTION The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective Numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 2. Article I of the Constitution provides, in turn, that the number of persons in each state is to be calculated by means of an "actual Enumeration" - known as the census - every ten years "in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct." Id. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Since 1790, the government has conducted that "actual Enumeration" through questions - initially asked in person and, later, by means of written questionnaire - about both the number and demographic backgrounds of those living in each American household. Beginning in 1820, one such question concerned (in one form or another) citizenship status. The government ceased asking that question of everyone nationwide in 1960. Earlier this year, however, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., exercising authority delegated by Congress over the census, announced that he was reinstating the citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. Secretary Ross explained that reinstatement of the citizenship question is necessary for the Department of Justice to enforce, and courts to adjudicate, violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301. Plaintiffs in these two related cases (which have been informally consolidated for purposes of scheduling and discovery) contend that Secretary Ross's decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire violates both the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq. In 18-CV-2921, Plaintiffs are eighteen states and the District of Columbia, as well as various cities, counties, and mayors; they challenge the Secretary's decision under both Article I's Enumeration Clause and the APA. (Docket No. 214 ("SAC"), ¶¶ 178-97). In 18-CV-5025, Plaintiffs are five nongovernmental organizations, four suing on behalf of themselves and their members and one suing only on its own behalf; they challenge the Secretary's decision on the same grounds and also as a violation of equal protection, as embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (18-CV-5025, Docket No. 1 ("NGO Compl."), ¶¶ 193-212). On May 25, 2018, Defendants - the United States Department of Commerce; Secretary Ross (the "Secretary"); the Bureau of the Census (the "Census Bureau"); and Acting Director of the Census Bureau, Ron Jarmin - moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in 18-CV-2921. (Docket No. 154). On June 29, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in 18-CV-5025. (18-CV-5025, Docket No. 38). The Court held oral argument on the first motion on July 3, 2018. (See July 3, 2018 Transcript, Docket No. 207 ("Oral Arg. Tr.") ) Broadly speaking, in this Opinion, the Court reaches three conclusions with respect to Defendants' motions. First , the Court categorically rejects Defendants' efforts to insulate Secretary Ross's decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census from judicial review. Contending that Plaintiffs cannot prove they have been or will be injured by the decision, and citing the degree of discretion afforded to Congress by the Enumeration Clause and to the Secretary by statute, Defendants insist that this Court lacks jurisdiction even to consider Plaintiffs' claims. As the Court will explain, however, that contention flies in the face of decades of precedent from the Supreme Court, the Second Circuit, and other courts. That precedent makes clear that, while deference is certainly owed to the Secretary's decisions, courts have a critical role to play in entertaining challenges like those raised by Plaintiffs here. Second , the Court concludes that the citizenship question is a permissible - but by no means mandated - exercise of the broad power granted to Congress (and, in turn, to the Secretary) in the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution. That conclusion is compelled not only by the text of the Clause, which vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the census, but also by historical practice. The historical practice reveals that, since the very first census in 1790, the federal government has consistently used the decennial exercise not only to obtain a strict headcount in fulfillment of the constitutional mandate to conduct an "actual Enumeration," but also to gather demographic data about the population on matters such as race, sex, occupation, and, even citizenship. Moreover, it reveals that all three branches of the government - including the Supreme Court and lower courts - have blessed this dual use of the census, if not a citizenship question itself. In the face of that history and the broad constitutional grant of power to Congress, the Court cannot conclude that the Secretary lacks power under the Enumeration Clause to ask a question about citizenship on the census. Third , although the Secretary has authority under the Enumeration Clause to direct the inclusion of a citizenship question on the census, the Court concludes that the particular exercise of that authority by Secretary Ross may have violated NGO Plaintiffs' rights to equal protection of the laws under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That is, assuming the truth of NGO Plaintiffs' allegations and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor - as the Court must at this stage of the proceedings - they plausibly allege that Secretary Ross's decision to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 census was motivated by discriminatory animus and that its application will result in a discriminatory effect. As discussed below, that conclusion is supported by indications that Defendants deviated from their standard procedures in hastily adding the citizenship question; by evidence suggesting that Secretary Ross's stated rationale for adding the question is pretextual; and by contemporary statements of decisionmakers, including statements by the President, whose reelection campaign credited him with "officially" mandating Secretary Ross's decision to add the question right after it was announced. The net effect of these conclusions is that Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted in part and denied in part. In particular, Plaintiffs' claims under the Enumeration Clause - which turn on Secretary Ross's power rather than his purposes - must be and are dismissed. By contrast, their claims under the APA (which Defendants seek to dismiss solely on jurisdictional and justiciability grounds) and the Due Process Clause - which turn at least in part on Secretary Ross's purposes and not merely on his power - may proceed. BACKGROUND As noted, the Constitution requires an "actual Enumeration" of "the whole number of persons in each State" every ten years, and grants to Congress authority to conduct that enumeration - commonly known as the census - "in such Manner as [Congress] shall by Law direct." U.S. C ONST . art. 1, § 2, cl. 3 & amend. XIV. The modern census is governed by the Census Act, which was enacted in 1976. See 13 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. The Act delegates to the Secretary of Commerce the duty to "take a decennial census of population as of the first day of April of such year ... in such form and content as he may determine." 13 U.S.C. § 141(a). It further provides that "[t]he Secretary shall prepare questionnaires, and shall determine the inquiries, and the number, form, and subdivisions thereof, for the statistics, surveys, and censuses provided for in [the Act]." Id. § 5. The Secretary is required to submit "a report containing [his] determination of the questions proposed to be included" in the census "not later than 2 years before the appropriate census date." Id. § 141(f)(2). After the census is taken, the President is tasked with transmitting to Congress "a statement showing the whole number of persons in each State ... as ascertained under the ... decennial census of the population, and the number of Representatives to which each State" is "entitled." 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a). Significantly, consistent with the constitutional text, the decennial census endeavors to count all residents of the United States, regardless of their legal status. See Fed'n for Am. Immigration Reform v. Klutznick , 486 F.Supp. 564, 576 (D.D.C. 1980) (three-judge court) ("The language of the Constitution is not ambiguous. It requires the counting of the 'whole number of persons' for apportionment purposes, and while illegal aliens were not a component of the population at the time the Constitution was adopted, they are clearly 'persons.' "). The federal government, however, has long used the decennial census to do more than take a mere headcount of the population for purposes of apportioning Representatives. It has also used the census as a means to collect data - demographic and otherwise - on the population of the United States. See generally U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, MEASURING AMERICA: THE DECENNIAL CENSUSES FROM 1790 TO 2000 ("MEASURING AMERICA") (2002), available at http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2002/dec/pol_02-ma.pdf. Notably, that practice began with the nation's very first census, taken in 1790, which was conducted by United States Marshals. See Act of March 1, 1790 ("1790 Census Act"), 1 Stat. 101, 101-02 (1790). Congress directed the Marshals to ask each household, among other things, about "the sexes and colours of free persons" as well the age of residents, id. at 101, in order to "assess the countries [sic ] industrial and military potential," MEASURING AMERICA 5. As a history of the census prepared in 1900 for the Senate Committee on the Census described the first census: "Instead of providing simply for an enumeration of the population in 1790 ... which would have answered all the requirements of the Constitution," Congress "called for [more information] ... thus recognizing at the very outset the desirability of using the census as a means of securing data beyond the mere statement of population needed for apportionment purposes." CARROLL D. WRIGHT, THE HISTORY AND GROWTH OF THE UNITED STATES CENSUS ("HISTORY AND GROWTH") , S. Doc. No. 194, at 89 (1st Sess., 1900). The inquiries on the second and third censuses were largely the same as the first. See MEASURING AMERICA 6; see also Act of Feb. 28, 1800 ("1800 Census Act"), 2 Stat. 11 (1800); Act of March 26, 1810, 2 Stat. 564 (1810). Unlike the first census, however, the second census also included a question about the town or city in which persons resided. See 1800 Census Act, 2 Stat. at 11-12. The third census, taken in 1810, also required the Marshals to give "an account of the several manufacturing establishments ... within their several districts." Act of May 1, 1810, 2 Stat. 605, 605 (1810). Interestingly, civic groups - including the American Philosophical Society, led by Thomas Jefferson - encouraged Congress to add questions regarding citizenship (and other topics) as early as the second census, but those proposals were rejected at that point without debate. See WRIGHT, HISTORY AND GROWTH 19-20. For reasons that are not clear, however, Congress did add a question about citizenship to the fourth census in 1820, directing enumerators to tally the number of "Foreigners not naturalized." Act of March 14, 1820 ("1820 Census Act"), 3 Stat. 548, 550 (1820). The fifth census in 1830 - which was the first to rely on standardized, pre-printed forms - tallied all "white persons" who were "ALIENS - Foreigners not naturalized." Act of March 23, 1830 ("1830 Census Act"), 4 Stat. 383, 389 (1830). For unknown reasons, the sixth census in 1840 did not ask about citizenship or birthplace, although it did include nearly every other question that had been asked in the fifth census, including questions regarding occupation, mental illness, and military service. See WRIGHT, HISTORY AND GROWTH 142-43 (reprinting the inquiries on the sixth census). The scope of the census then expanded materially in 1850, when it was overseen, for the first time, by a "census board" composed of "the Secretary of State, the Attorney-General, and the Postmaster-General."Id. at 40. The census board prepared six "schedules" of inquiries, relating to "(1) free inhabitants, (2) slave inhabitants, (3) mortality, (4) productions of agriculture, (5) products of industry, and (6) social statistics." Id. at 44-45. All "free inhabitants" were required to state their place of birth ("State, Territory, or country"), as well as the "[v]alue of real estate owned" and whether they were "deaf and dumb, blind, insane, idiotic, pauper, or convict." See Act of May 15, 1850 ("1850 Census Act"), 9 Stat. 428, 433 (1850). Although the 1850 census required inhabitants to state their place of birth, it did not explicitly ask about citizenship. The questions in 1860 and 1870 were largely the same as those in 1850, although the 1870 census also included a question about whether the respondent's father or mother was "of foreign birth" and an explicit inquiry (no doubt prompted by the Civil War and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) as to "[m]ale [c]itizens of U.S. of 21 years of age and upwards, whose right to vote is denied or abridged on other grounds than rebellion or other crime." See MEASURING AMERICA 13. The 1880 census asked for the birthplaces of the respondent and of each respondent's parents ("naming the State or Territory of the United States, or the Country, if of foreign birth"). See id. at 17. The 1880 census was also the first to be conducted by a newly established census office, led by the Superintendent of the Census and lodged in the Department of the Interior. See WRIGHT, HISTORY AND GROWTH 58-59. The census office prescribed similar questions for the 1890 census, asking for the respondent's and his or her parents' places of birth and, additionally, whether the respondent was naturalized and whether "naturalization papers have been taken out." MEASURING AMERICA 22. In the early 20th century, the federal government continued to use the census to gather data regarding citizenship and other topics. The 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930 censuses, in keeping with their immediate predecessors, asked about birthplace and parental birthplace; they also asked immigrant residents their year of immigration and whether they were naturalized. Id. at 34, 45-46, 58, 59. The 1940 census asked for residents' birthplace and for "[c]itizenship of the foreign born." Id. at 62. The 1940 census was also the first to include supplemental questions that went to only a sample fraction of the population; on the 1940 census, these supplemental inquiries included a question about parental birthplace. Id. at 63. The 1950 census also asked all respondents for their birthplace and whether foreign-born residents were naturalized, and asked a sample of the population supplemental questions about, among other things, parental birthplace. Id. at 66-68. The 1960 census marked a departure from previous censuses in several respects. See generally MARGO J. ANDERSON, THE AMERICAN CENSUS: A SOCIAL HISTORY 201-06 (1988). For one, it was the first census to rely principally on the mail to distribute and collect questionnaires. U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS, 1960 CENSUSES OF POPULATION AND HOUSING: PROCEDURAL HISTORY ("1960 CENSUSES OF POPULATION AND HOUSING") 1 (1966), available at http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1960/proceduralHistory/1960proceduralhistory.zip. It was also the first census to pose the majority of questions to only a fraction of the population: The census posed only five questions to all respondents, with more detailed questions going to twenty-five percent of the population. MEASURING AMERICA 72. The five universal questions included the respondent's relationship to the head of household, sex, color or race, marital status, and month and year of birth. See 1960 CENSUSES OF POPULATION AND HOUSING 364. The lengthier questionnaire that went to a sample of the population included questions regarding respondents' and parental birthplace, highest level of education attained, salary earned, and how many working television sets a household had. Id. at 73-75. Notably, the 1960 census was the first since 1840 not to include a question about citizenship (or birthplace) for all residents. It did, however, ask all residents of New York and Puerto Rico about citizenship - the former "at the expense of the State, to meet State constitutional requirements for State legislative apportionment" and the latter, at the request of a census advisory committee, "to permit detailed studies of migration." 1960 CENSUSES OF POPULATION AND HOUSING 10, 130. In a review of the census, the Census Bureau explained the decision not to ask all respondents about citizenship as follows: "It was felt that general census information on citizenship had become of less importance compared with other possible questions to be included in the census, particularly in view of the recent statutory requirement for annual alien registration which could provide the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the principal user of such data, with the information it needed." Id. at 194. Between 1970 and 2000, the census continued to feature a short questionnaire distributed to the vast majority of the population (known as the "short-form census") and a longer questionnaire, which included both the inquiries on the shorter questionnaire as well as additional questions, distributed to a sample of the population (known as the "long-form census"). During that time, none of the short-form questionnaires included a question about citizenship or birthplace. See MEASURING AMERICA 77 (1970), 84 (1980), 91 (1990), 100 (2000). But each long-form census, which went to approximately one sixth of households, did. See id. at 78 (1970), 85 (1980), 92 (1990), 101 (2000). In 2010, the Census Bureau dropped the long-form questionnaire altogether, a change that was precipitated by the introduction, in 2005, of the American Community Survey ("ACS"). See JENNIFER D. WILLIAMS, THE 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 3 (2011), available at https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2010-background-crs.pdf. Unlike the decennial census, the ACS is conducted annually and is not used to obtain an "actual Enumeration" of the population for purposes of apportionment; instead, it is given each year to only about 3.5 million households - roughly one in every thirty-eight households in the country - for the sole purpose of collecting demographic data on the population. (SAC ¶¶ 74, 98 n.43). The ACS "requires citizens to disclose whether they were born in 'United States territories,' whether they were born 'abroad' to U.S. parents, or if and when they were 'naturalized.' " (Id. ¶ 76). The 2010 census asked about "the age, sex, race, and ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic) of each person in a household," as well as "whether the housing unit was rented or owned by a member of the household." WILLIAMS, THE 2010 DECENNIAL CENSUS: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES 3. It did not ask about citizenship. Thus, the last time that the census asked every respondent about citizenship was sixty-eight years ago, in 1950. Notably, since then, the Census Bureau and former Bureau officials have opposed periodic efforts to reinstate a citizenship question on a universal basis. In 1980, for example, several plaintiffs (including the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which appears here as amicus curiae in support of Defendants) sued the Census Bureau, contending that the census was constitutionally required to count only citizens. Fed'n for Am. Immigration Reform , 486 F.Supp. at 565. In that litigation, the Census Bureau argued that reinstating a citizenship question for all respondents would "inevitably jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count" because noncitizens would be reluctant to participate, for fear "of the information being used against them." Id. at 568. Likewise, in Congressional testimony prior to the 1990 census, Census Bureau officials opposed reinstating a citizenship question for all respondents, opining that it could cause people to "misunderstand or mistrust the census and fail or refuse to respond." Exclude Undocumented Residents from Census Counts Used for Apportionment: Hearing on H.R. 3639, H.R. 3814, and H.R. 4234 Before the Subcomm. on Census & Population of the H. Comm. on Post Office & Civil Serv. , 100th Cong. 50-51 (1988) (statement of John G. Keane, Director, Bureau of the Census); see also Census Equity Act: Hearings on H.R. 2661 Before the Subcomm. on Census & Population of the H. Comm. on Post Office & Civ. Serv. , 101st Cong. 42-44 (1989) (statement of C. Louis Kincannon, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census). Before the 2010 census, former Bureau Director Kenneth Prewitt testified before Congress to the same effect. See Counting the Vote: Should Only U.S. Citizens Be Included in Apportioning Our Elected Representatives?: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Federalism & the Census of the H. Comm. on Gov't Reform , 109th Cong. 73 (2005) (statement of Kenneth Prewitt). And finally, just two years ago, several former Bureau Directors wrote in an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court (in a case about the use of total population in intrastate redistricting) that a "citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census." Brief of Former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees at 25, 2015 WL 5675832, Evenwel v. Abbott , 136 S.Ct. 1120 (2016). Earlier this year, however, the Census Bureau reversed course. Specifically, on March 26, 2018, Secretary Ross issued a memorandum directing the Census Bureau to reinstate the citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census. (SAC ¶ 3; see also Docket No. 173 ("Admin. Record"), at 1313-20 ("Ross Mem.") ). Secretary Ross asserted that he included the citizenship question in response to a letter from the Department of Justice ("DOJ") dated December 12, 2017. (SAC ¶ 94). The DOJ letter, in turn, requested the question's reinstatement on the grounds that more granular citizenship data was necessary to enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discriminatory voting laws. (Id. ¶ 95). After considering several options - including maintaining the status quo and using "administrative records to calculate citizenship data," (id. ¶ 81 (internal quotation marks omitted) ) - the Secretary concluded that the "value of more complete citizenship data outweighed concerns regarding non-response." (Id. ¶ 82). Two days later, President Trump's campaign sent an e-mail to supporters stating that "President Trump has officially mandated that the 2020 United States Census ask people living in America whether or not they are citizens." (NGO Compl. ¶ 178). These lawsuits (and others, elsewhere) followed. LEGAL STANDARDS Defendants move to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the court's subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case. "A case is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Makarova v. United States , 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000). "In resolving a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), the district court must take all uncontroverted facts in the complaint (or petition) as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the party asserting jurisdiction." Fountain v. Karim , 838 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Tandon v. Captain's Cove Marina of Bridgeport, Inc. , 752 F.3d 239, 243 (2d Cir. 2014) ). Additionally, a court "may consider affidavits and other materials beyond the pleadings to resolve the jurisdictional issue, but [the Court] may not rely on conclusory or hearsay statements contained in the affidavits." J.S. ex rel. N.S. v. Attica Cent. Schs. , 386 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2004). Ultimately, "[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of proving subject matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence." Aurecchione v. Schoolman Transp. Sys., Inc. , 426 F.3d 635, 638 (2d Cir. 2005). By contrast, a Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint and requires a court to determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See, e.g., Holmes v. Grubman , 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). To survive such a motion, however, the plaintiff must plead sufficient facts "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citing Twombly , 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ); see also Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (noting that a claim must be dismissed if the plaintiffs "have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible"). DISCUSSION Defendants make four arguments with respect to the operative complaints in both cases, and one argument unique to NGO Plaintiffs' Complaint in 18-CV-5025. First, they contend that Plaintiffs in both cases lack Article III standing because Plaintiffs do not allege an injury-in-fact that is fairly traceable to Defendants' conduct. (See Docket No. 155 ("Defs.' Br."), at 13-21). Second, they assert that all of the claims pressed by Plaintiffs are barred by the political question doctrine. (See id. at 21-26). Third, they insist that the decision as to what questions should be included in the census questionnaire is committed by law to agency discretion and, thus, that Secretary Ross's decision is not subject to judicial review under the APA. (See id. at 26-30). Fourth, they aver that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Enumeration Clause. (See id. at 30-35). And finally, they argue that NGO Plaintiffs fail to state an equal protection claim under the Due Process Clause. (See 18-CV-5025, Docket No. 39 ("Defs.' NGO Br."), at 16-19). The Court will address each of those arguments in turn. A. Standing Article III of the Constitution restricts the "judicial Power" of the United States to "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. C ONST .art. III, § 2. In light of that restriction, a party invoking the court's jurisdiction - the plaintiff - must have "standing" to sue. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 408, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013). To have standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements. See, e.g., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). Specifically, a "plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (citing Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ). Significantly, each element "must be supported ... with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation." Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only "clearly ... allege facts demonstrating" each element. Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 518, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) ; see also John v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc. , 858 F.3d 732, 736 (2d Cir. 2017) ("[B]ecause [the defendant] mounts only a 'facial' challenge to [the plaintiff's] allegations of standing, [the plaintiff] bears no evidentiary burden at the pleading stage."); Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC , 822 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2016) ("When the Rule 12(b)(1) motion is facial, ... [t]he task of the district court is to determine whether the Pleading allege[s] facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that [the plaintiff] has standing to sue." (second and third alterations in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Further, where there are multiple plaintiffs, as here, only one must establish the elements of standing for the case to proceed. See, e.g., Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay , 868 F.3d 104, 109 (2d Cir. 2017). In this case, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to establish that they have been injured in fact and that any injury is traceable to the challenged conduct. (See Defs.' Br. 13-14). Additionally, they make a handful of arguments specific to whether NGO Plaintiffs have standing. (See Defs.' NGO Br. 4-15). The Court will address the common arguments first. 1. Injury-in-Fact The injury-in-fact requirement is meant to "ensure that the plaintiff has a 'personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.' " Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , --- U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 2341, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (quoting Warth , 422 U.S. at 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197 ). To establish injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must demonstrate an injury that is "concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent." Clapper , 568 U.S. at 409, 133 S.Ct. 1138. "Although imminence is concededly a somewhat elastic concept, it cannot be stretched beyond its purpose, which is to ensure that the alleged injury is not too speculative ...." Id. Nevertheless, a plaintiff may allege a "future injury" if he or she shows that "the threatened injury is 'certainly impending,' or there is a 'substantial risk' that the harm will occur." Susan B. Anthony List , 134 S.Ct. at 2341 (emphasis added) (quoting Clapper , 568 U.S. at 409, 414 n.5, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013) ). Plaintiffs easily meet their burden at this stage of the proceedings. Plaintiffs' theory of injury proceeds in two steps, each of which is amply supported by allegations in their operative complaints - allegations that the Court must assume are true in deciding this motion. First, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants' inclusion of a citizenship question on the census will "drive down response rates and seriously impair the accuracy of the decennial population count." (SAC ¶ 39; accord NGO Compl. ¶ 4). In support of that assertion, Plaintiffs proffer an array of evidence - much of it from Defendants themselves. For instance, Plaintiffs cite the Census Bureau's own argument in 1980 that "any effort to ascertain citizenship will inevitably jeopardize the overall accuracy of the population count" because "[q]uestions as to citizenship are particularly sensitive in minority communities and would inevitable trigger ... refusal to cooperate." (SAC ¶ 40 (quoting Fed'n for Am. Immigration Reform , 486 F.Supp. at 568 ); accord NGO Compl. ¶ 84). Plaintiffs also cite testimony, interviews, and an amicus brief filed by former Directors of the Census Bureau, arguing in sum and substance that the "citizenship inquiry would invariably lead to a lower response rate to the Census in general." (SAC ¶¶ 39-47; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 81-90). Moreover, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that this risk is "heightened in the current political climate because of President Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric." (SAC ¶ 48; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 113-26, 140-46). Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim, Defendants' actions "will add to this unprecedented level of anxiety in immigrant communities," leading to "nonresponse and lower participation by many immigrants." (SAC ¶ 53; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 141-46). The second step in Plaintiffs' argument is that this "undercounting" will result in various concrete harms to them and their constituents or members. (See, e.g. , SAC ¶ 105 ("[I]n 2014, New York State had the fourth largest population of undocumented residents in the nation."); see id. ¶¶ 104-38; see also, e.g. , NGO Compl. ¶ 52 ("Make the Road New York members ... will be deprived of political influence and funding ....") ). For example, Plaintiffs identify various federal programs, including "the Highway Trust Fund program, the Urbanized Area Formula Funding program, the Metropolitan Planning program, and the Community Highway Safety Grant program," which "distribute funds based, at least in part, on population figures collected through the decennial census." (SAC ¶ 140 (citing 23 U.S.C. § 104(d)(3) ; 49 U.S.C. §§ 5305, 5307, 5340 ; 23 U.S.C. § 402 ); see id. ¶ 145 ("Plaintiffs will lose millions of dollars in [Medicaid] reimbursement as a result of even a 1% undercount."); see also NGO Compl. ¶ 197 (identifying the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, the Highway Trust Fund program, and other programs that rely on population figures from the census) ). Additionally, they note that the Department of Education relies on census data to determine certain funding for schools in their jurisdictions. (See, e.g. , SAC ¶ 143(a)-(v) ). Citing these programs, they plausibly allege that an undercount in their jurisdictions will "depriv[e] them of their statutory fair share of federal funding, and remov[e] crucial resources for important government services." (Id. ¶ 139; accord NGO Compl. ¶ 52). That alone is sufficient to confer standing. See, e.g., Carey v. Klutznick , 637 F.2d 834, 838 (2d Cir. 1980) (per curiam ) (holding that New York City, New York State, and several individual voters had standing to challenge "a census undercount" by alleging harm "in the form of dilution of [the individual plaintiffs'] votes," and, for the government plaintiffs, "as recipients of federal funds"). But on top of that, Government Plaintiffs also plausibly allege that an undercount "will lead to loss of representation in Rhode Island" - which is apparently teetering on the edge of losing one of its two Representatives already - and will the "harm representational interests" of local government Plaintiffs "within their states." (SAC ¶¶ 160-63). That, too, is sufficient. See, e.g., Dep't of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives , 525 U.S. 316, 331, 119 S.Ct. 765, 142 L.Ed.2d 797 (1999) (observing that the "expected loss of a Representative to the United States Congress undoubtedly satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement" of standing). In response, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' allegations are "too speculative" because they rely on a highly attenuated chain of inferences. (Defs.' Br. 14). That may ultimately prove to be the case, but Defendants' contentions are misplaced at this stage in the litigation, when Plaintiffs "bear[ ] no evidentiary burden." John , 858 F.3d at 736. Citing a memorandum authored by Secretary Ross, for example, Defendants claim that "there is little 'definitive, empirical' evidence regarding the effect of adding a citizenship question." (Defs.' Br. 15). But Plaintiffs allege otherwise, citing ample evidence - spanning decades and much of it from the Census Bureau itself - in support of the proposition that including a citizenship question will cause an undercount. (See SAC ¶¶ 39-47; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 81-90). Moreover, Plaintiffs cite testing that the Census Bureau conducted in 2017 that tended to show that "fears, particularly among immigrant respondents, have increased markedly this year." (SAC ¶ 51; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 113-26). These findings, the Census Bureau explained, "have implications for data quality and nonresponse." (SAC ¶ 52; accord NGO Compl. ¶ 127). For the time being, those allegations are sufficient to establish Plaintiffs' point. See, e.g., Bennett v. Spear , 520 U.S. 154, 168, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997) ("[W]hile a plaintiff must set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts to survive a motion for summary judgment, and must ultimately support any contested facts with evidence adduced at trial, at the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we presume that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim." (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted) ). Defendants' reliance on contrary evidence merely raises disputes of fact that the Court may not resolve on a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Next, Defendants claim that the Census Bureau "has extensive procedures in place to address non-response and to obtain accurate data for those households that decline to respond." (Defs.' Br. 15). Defendants repackaged this argument slightly in their reply brief, (Defs.' Reply Br. 4), and at oral argument, (Oral Arg. Tr. 12), claiming that Plaintiffs fail to distinguish between the initial "self-response" to the written census form, and the "non-response followup" employed by the Census Bureau to reach initial non-responders. As Defendants see it, Plaintiffs allege only that the initial self-response rate will decrease; they fail to consider that the nonresponse followup could cure any diminished self-response. (Defs.' Reply Br. 4). However packaged, though, those arguments are also factual and thus premature. Moreover, they ignore well-pleaded allegations in Plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs allege broadly that adding the citizenship question will "significantly deter[ ] participation " in the census. (SAC ¶ 5 (emphasis added); accord NGO Compl. ¶ 141 (alleging that "adding the citizenship question" will "reduc[e] participation by Latinos and Immigrants of color") ). And Plaintiffs support that assertion with concrete allegations, citing, for example, reports from the Census Bureau that census respondents "sought to break off interviews" because of "concerns about data confidentiality and the government's negative attitudes toward immigrants." (SAC ¶ 51; accord NGO Compl. ¶¶ 133-37). In other words, Plaintiffs plausibly allege that the addition of the citizenship question will affect not only the initial response rate to the questionnaire itself, but also cooperation with the in-person followup. Finally, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding loss of representation and federal funding are "too speculative" because apportionment and the allocation of funds are both "complex" and could be affected by, among other things, "potential undercounting in other states." (Defs.' Br. 16-18). But that argument is squarely foreclosed by Carey , in which the Second Circuit held that New York City and New York State had standing to challenge the Census Bureau's conduct during the 1980 census because they had "made a showing ... that Census Bureau actions in New York State have caused a disproportionate undercount which will result in loss of representation" and "decreased federal funds ... under revenue sharing." 637 F.2d at 838 ; see also, e.g., City of Detroit v. Franklin , 4 F.3d 1367, 1374 (6th Cir. 1993) ("Plaintiffs ... have standing to challenge the [Secretary's] actions based upon their claim that the census undercount will result in a loss of federal funds to the City of Detroit."). Defendants try to distinguish Carey on the ground that it "did not involve allegations of injuries from the mere inclusion of a question," (Defs.' Br. 17 n.8), but that consideration is irrelevant to the standing inquiry. Equally irrelevant is the fact that the Second Circuit "cited New York City's 'present financial condition' in finding that the city and the state had standing as recipients of federal funds." (Id. ). The loss of federal funds constitutes injury whether or not a jurisdiction is in sound fiscal shape, and nothing in Carey suggests that the Court's passing reference to the financial condition of New York City (not the State) was essential to its holding. Finally, the fact that Carey analyzed standing after preliminary results from the census had been tabulated - a point that Defendants pressed at oral argument, (see Oral Arg. Tr. 8-9) - is merely a difference in degree. Put simply, the Circuit did not demand the kind of rigorous proof that an undercount would result in the loss of representation and federal funds that Defendants here demand. See also U.S. House of Representatives , 525 U.S. at 332, 119 S.Ct. 765 (finding standing to bring a challenge in advance of the census based on "the threat of vote dilution" and noting that "it is certainly not necessary ... to wait until the census has been conducted to consider the issues presented here, because such a pause would result in extreme - possibly irremediable - hardship"). In short, taking Plaintiffs' allegations as true, the Court concludes that they establish a "substantial risk" of harm and thus satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. 2. Traceability As noted, to establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must also demonstrate that his or her injury is "fairly traceable" to the challenged actions of the defendant. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (ellipsis and brackets omitted). In other words, a plaintiff "must demonstrate a causal nexus between the defendant's conduct and the injury." Chevron Corp. , 833 F.3d at 121. On a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have only a "relatively modest" burden to allege that "their injury is 'fairly traceable' " to the defendant's conduct. Bennett , 520 U.S. at 171, 117 S.Ct. 1154. But that burden is harder to carry where, as here, traceability "depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict." Lujan , 504 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. 2130. In such a case, "it becomes the burden of the plaintiff to adduce facts showing that" the choices of these independent actors "have been or will be made in such manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of injury." Id. ; see also, e.g., Bennett , 520 U.S. at 169, 117 S.Ct. 1154 (holding that a plaintiff may meet the traceability requirement by alleging that a defendant's conduct has a "determinative or coercive effect upon the action of someone else"). At the same time, "it is well-settled that for standing purposes, [plaintiffs] need not prove a cause-and-effect relationship with absolute certainty; substantial likelihood of the alleged causality meets the test. This is true even in cases where the injury hinges on the reactions of the third parties ... to the agency's conduct." Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Admin . ("NRDC "), 894 F.3d 95, 104 (2d Cir. 2018). Thus, the "fact that the defendant's conduct may be only an 'indirect[ ]' cause is 'not necessarily fatal to standing.' " Chevron Corp. , 833 F.3d at 121 (alteration in original) (quoting Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org. , 426 U.S. 26, 44, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976) ). The Second Circuit's recent decision in NRDC is instructive. In that case, the petitioners - five states and three nonprofit organizations - claimed that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") violated the APA when it indefinitely delayed the effective date of a rule that would have increased penalties for violations of certain vehicle environmental standards. NRDC , 894 F.3d at 100. The petitioners claimed environmental injuries stemming from the indefinite delay of the rule. Id. at 103-04. NHTSA argued, inter alia , that the petitioners' injuries were "too indirect to establish causation and redressability" because they relied on the uncertain reactions of third parties - namely, vehicle manufacturers - to the increased penalties. Id. at 104. The Second Circuit rejected NHTSA's argument, finding that the petitioners had demonstrated "the required nexus between inappropriately low penalties and harm to Petitioners." Id. Citing "the agency's own pronouncements," as well as "[c]ommon sense and basic economics," the Court concluded that "the increased penalty has the potential to affect automakers' business decisions and compliance approaches" in a manner that would harm the petitioners. Id. at 105 (alteration in original). Specifically, the Court noted that "NHTSA itself has concluded that emissions reductions from compliance with higher fuel economy standards would result in significant declines in the adverse health effects that result from population exposure to these pollutants." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Applying those standards to Defendants' motions to dismiss, Plaintiffs meet their traceability burden. Plaintiffs allege that reinstating the citizenship question "will lead to nonresponse and lower participation" in the census, which will, in turn, cause financial and representational injuries to Plaintiffs. (SAC ¶ 53; see id. ¶ 159 (alleging that adding a citizenship question will "depress[ ] participation in the decennial census within Plaintiffs' diverse naturalized, documented, and undocumented immigrant populations"); see also NGO Compl. ¶¶ 4-5). Plaintiffs further allege that "immigrant respondents are ... increasingly concerned about confidentiality and data sharing in light of the current anti-immigrant rhetoric," and "may seek to protect their own privacy or the privacy of their household" by not responding to the census. (SAC ¶¶ 50, 53; accord NGO Compl. ¶ 127). Moreover, like the petitioners in NRDC , Plaintiffs support these allegations with evidence from Defendants themselves. (See, e.g. , SAC ¶ 51 ("Census Bureau officials have noted that in routine pretests conducted from February 2017 to September 2017, 'fears, particularly among immigrant respondents, have increased markedly this year.' "); id. ¶ 52 (quoting the Census Bureau's conclusion that their findings after a census pretest were "particularly troubling given that they impact hard-to-count populations disproportionately, and have implications for data quality and nonresponse"); NGO Compl. ¶¶ 81-90). Plaintiffs thus plead a "substantial likelihood of the alleged causality." NRDC , 894 F.3d at 104. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decisions in Clapper and Simon , Defendants contend that "the intervening acts of third parties" - namely, those who refuse to comply with their legal duty to respond to the census questionnaire - break the chain of causation in these cases for purposes of standing. (Defs.' Br. 19-20). But that argument "wrongly equates injury 'fairly traceable' to the defendant with injury as to which the defendant's actions are the very last step in the chain of causation." Bennett , 520 U.S. at 168-69, 117 S.Ct. 1154. Moreover, Clapper and Simon are distinguishable. For one, both of those cases were decided on summary judgment, at which point the plaintiffs could "no longer rest on ... mere allegations, but" had to "set forth by affidavit or other evidence specific facts." Clapper , 568 U.S. at 412, 133 S.Ct. 1138 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Simon , 426 U.S. at 35, 96 S.Ct. 1917. Further, the chains of causation in Clapper and Simon were significantly more attenuated than the one here. In Clapper , the plaintiffs' theory of injury depended on a chain of causation with five discrete links, each of which "rest[ed] on [the plaintiffs'] highly speculative fear that" governmental actors or courts would exercise their nearly unfettered discretion in a particular way. 568 U.S. at 410-14, 133 S.Ct. 1138. And in Simon , the Court found that it was "purely speculative" to attribute the choice of hospitals to deny the indigent plaintiffs services to decisions of the Treasury Department, as opposed to "decisions made by the hospitals without regard to the tax implications." 426 U.S. at 41-43, 96 S.Ct. 1917. The chain of causation here - that Defendants' actions will increase non-response rates of certain populations and that the resulting undercount, in turn, will cause harm - is neither as long nor as speculative as the chains in Clapper and Simon . The injuries alleged in Clapper and Simon also differ in an important respect from the injuries alleged in the instant cases. In those two cases, the plaintiffs' standing turned on their ability to prove that the defendants' conduct would cause injury to particular individuals. That is, in Clapper , each plaintiff had to show that his or her own communications would likely be intercepted by surveillance conducted pursuant to the provisions at issue. See 568 U.S. at 410-12, 133 S.Ct. 1138. And in Simon , the plaintiffs had to show that particular indigent individuals were denied service at a hospital on account of the defendants' conduct. See 426 U.S. at 40, 96 S.Ct. 1917. The plaintiffs in those cases could not make a showing at that level of specificity. In these cases, by contrast, the alleged injuries are aggregate or communal in nature. That is, Plaintiffs do not need to show that a particular person will be deterred by Defendant's conduct from responding to the census; instead, their ability to prove injury that is fairly traceable to Defendants' actions turns on whether they can show that Defendants' conduct is likely to result in an undercount at the aggregate level, something that can presumably be done through surveys or other statistical proof. Plaintiffs may or may not be able to make that showing when the time comes, but that is a question for another day. Given the allegations in Plaintiffs' operative complaints, including those based on Defendants' own evidence, they have done enough to survive the present motions. Finally, Defendants make much of the fact that the actions of the intervening third parties - namely, residents who fail to respond to the census - would be illegal. (Defs.' Br. 20; 18-CV-5025, Docket No. 58 ("Defs.' NGO Reply Br."), at 2-3). That is true, see 13 U.S.C. § 221(a) (establishing a fine for persons who do not respond to the census), but irrelevant to the question of standing, which turns only on whether the actions of the defendant can fairly be said to cause injury to the plaintiff. The D.C. Circuit's decision in Attias v. CareFirst, Inc. , 865 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 2017), is on point. In that case, the plaintiffs brought breach of contract, negligence, and consumer-protection law claims against CareFirst following a breach of CareFirst's computer systems, including a database containing its customers' personal information. Id. at 623. The plaintiffs alleged that they faced an increased risk of identity theft as a result of the defendant's negligence. The Court recognized standing in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs' ability to prove injury depended upon a showing that intervening third parties - data hackers - would break the law. Id. at 629. The Court explained that, while "the thief would be the most immediate cause of plaintiffs' injuries, ... Article III standing does not require that the defendant be the most immediate cause, or even a proximate cause, of the plaintiffs' injuries; it requires only that those injuries be 'fairly traceable' to the defendant." Id. So too here: Plaintiffs plausibly allege that adding the citizenship question will result in a disproportionate number of people not responding to the census in their jurisdictions and that this non-response, in turn, will cause them injury. That is a sufficient showing of traceability at this stage of the proceedings and, thus, sufficient to show standing. 3. NGO Plaintiffs' Standing As noted, Defendants make a handful of additional arguments with respect to the standing of NGO Plaintiffs - namely, that they lack standing to sue on their own behalf, that they lack standing to sue on behalf of their members, and that they lack "third-party" standing to assert the constitutional rights of their members. (See Defs.' NGO Br. 4-15). For an organization to establish standing to bring suit on behalf of its members - known as "associational standing" - the organization must show that: "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Here, at least one NGO Plaintiff - namely, Make the Road New York ("Make the Road") - plainly satisfies those requirements. Make the Road "has more than 22,000 members who reside in New York City, Long Island and Westchester County." (NGO Compl. ¶ 50). Its "mission is to build the power of immigrant and working class communities to achieve dignity and justice." (Id. ¶ 49). The Complaint alleges that the organization's members reside in communities where "Latino immigrant populations ... exceed the national and state averages." (Id. ¶ 51). It further alleges that New York State and its subdivisions use census data to draw congressional, state legislative, and municipal legislative districts. (Id. ¶¶ 72-73). Consequently, the Complaint alleges, the undercount likely caused by including the citizenship question "will reduce" both "the amount of federal funds" distributed to the communities in which Make the Road members live and their "political power." (Id. ¶ 52; see also id. ¶ 73 ("[W]hen a local community in any of these [jurisdictions] is disproportionately undercounted in the Decennial Census, the community will be placed in a malapportioned legislative district that has greater population that other legislative districts in the same state.") ). Notably, the Complaint specifically identifies one such member, Perla Lopez of Queens County, which has a large population of Latino and immigrant residents. (Id. ¶ 53). Affidavits - which the Court may consider, see Thompson v. Cty. of Franklin , 15 F.3d 245, 249 (2d Cir. 1994) - identify others, including a resident of Nassau County, where the "number of Latino and immigrant residents ... far exceed[s] the New York state average." (18-CV-5025, Docket No. 49 ("NGO Pls.' Br."), Ex. 3, ¶ 21). These allegations suffice to establish that Make the Road has associational standing. As discussed above, the Second Circuit and Supreme Court have made clear that both fiscal and representational injuries resulting from an alleged undercount are sufficient to support standing. See Carey , 637 F.2d at 838 ("[C]itizens who challenge a census undercount on the basis, inter alia , that improper enumeration will result in loss of funds to their city have established both an injury fairly traceable to the Census Bureau and a substantial probability that court intervention will remedy the plaintiffs' injury."); U.S. House of Representatives , 525 U.S. at 332, 119 S.Ct. 765 ("[T]he threat of vote dilution ... is concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." (internal quotation marks omitted) ). Further, these cases stand for the proposition that individuals, like Ms. Lopez, have standing to raise fiscal and representational injuries. See Carey , 637 F.2d at 838 ("The individual plaintiffs in this case have alleged concrete harm in the form of dilution of their votes and decreased federal funds flowing to their city and state, thus establishing their standing."); see also City of Philadelphia v. Klutznick , 503 F.Supp. 663, 672 (E.D. Pa. 1980) (holding that residents of Philadelphia had standing to challenge alleged undercount because "[e]ven if none of the named plaintiffs personally receives a dollar of state or federal aid, all enjoy the benefits yielded when the City is enabled to improve quality of life through the receipt of this money"). Nothing more is required at this stage of the proceedings. Defendants also contend that NGO Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their equal protection claim because they fail to "satisfy the third-party standing exception to the general rule against asserting the rights of others." (Defs.' NGO Br. 13-15). Defendants' invocation of the third-party standing doctrine is inapt, however, as Make the Road plainly has associational standing to bring an equal protection claim, and thus need not rely on the third-party standing doctrine. That NGO Plaintiffs' claim sounds in equal protection is of no moment for the associational standing inquiry. See, e.g., N.Y. State Club Ass'n, Inc. v. City of N.Y. , 487 U.S. 1, 9, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 101 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (holding that an association had standing to bring a constitutional claim on behalf of its members because the members "would have standing to bring this same suit"); Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville , 508 U.S. 656, 669 n.6, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993) (holding that, on "the current state of the record," an association of contractors had standing to bring an Equal Protection Clause challenge on behalf of its members); Thomas v. City of N.Y. , 143 F.3d 31, 36 n.9 (2d Cir. 1998) (finding that associations of livery car drivers had standing to bring an Equal Protection Clause challenge on behalf of their members). Notably, the Second Circuit has held that in cases such as this one, where plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief only, the third prong of the associational standing inquiry - whether the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit - is likely to be satisfied. See, e.g., Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council of Buffalo v. Downtown Dev., Inc. , 448 F.3d 138, 150 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[W]here the organization seeks a purely legal ruling without requesting that the federal court award individualized relief to its members, the Hunt test may be satisfied." (quoting Bano v. Union Carbide Corp. , 361 F.3d 696, 714 (2d Cir. 2004) ). In sum, the Court concludes that Make the Road has associational standing. Accordingly, it need not and does not address the standing of the other NGO Plaintiffs or Defendants' other arguments. See, e.g., Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley , 868 F.3d at 109 ("It is well settled that where, as here, multiple parties seek the same relief, 'the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement.' " (quoting Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc. , 547 U.S. 47, 52 n.2, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) ) ). B. The Political Question Doctrine Next, Defendants contend that all of Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed on the basis of the political question doctrine. (Defs.' Br. 21-26). Although a court generally has "a responsibility to decide cases properly before it," there is a well-established but "narrow exception to that rule, known as the political question doctrine." Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton , 566 U.S. 189, 194-95, 132 S.Ct. 1421, 182 L.Ed.2d 423 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). That doctrine "excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch. The Judiciary is particularly ill suited to make such decisions, as courts are fundamentally underequipped to formulate national policies or develop standards for matters not legal in nature." Japa