The case Department of Commerce, et al. v. United States House of Representatives et al., 1998 revolved around the constitutionality and legality of using statistical sampling in conducting the decennial census. The U.S Census Bureau intended to use this method to account for individuals who are typically undercounted in traditional headcounts, such as minorities and low-income populations. However, several parties including some members of Congress argued that this violated Article I Section 2 Clause 3 and Section 195 Title XIII which require an "actual Enumeration" every ten years. In a complex ruling with multiple opinions written by different justices, the Supreme Court held that while statistical sampling could be used for purposes like apportioning federal funding or creating demographic data sets; it was not permissible when determining representation in Congress (apportionment). The court reasoned that since there were other methods available to achieve a more accurate count without resorting to estimation techniques like sampling - these should be employed instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Department of Commerce v. United States House of Representatives, Justice Scalia argued that the use of statistical sampling in census-taking was not unconstitutional and should be allowed. He believed that there is no constitutional requirement for a headcount or physical enumeration, but rather an "actual Enumeration" which could include statistical methods to account for those who are missed in initial counts. The Constitution does not specify how this enumeration must be conducted, leaving it up to Congress's discretion. Furthermore, he pointed out that historical practices have varied widely over time and have included forms of estimation before. Therefore, prohibiting modern statistical techniques would contradict both historical practice and common sense as these methods can improve accuracy by accounting for undercounts typically seen among certain populations such as minorities and low-income households.