COVID-19 Summary: This is a putative class-action complaint filed on May 8 challenging the requirement for a social insurance number to qualify for the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) stimulus checks. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the SSN requirement and requiring the defendants to hold in escrow funds for the issuance funds to the proposed class. On June 30, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in several U.S. District Courts. The case is stayed pending the final decisions in related cases.
On May 8, two U.S. citizens married to spouses without SSNs filed a suit against various government defendants to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the CARES Act. The plaintiffs alleged that 26 U.S.C. § 6428 (the Exclusion Provision), as enacted by Section 2101 of the CARES Act, violated due process, equal protection, and the penumbra of privacy rights under the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs filed this action at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin as a declaratory and injunctive action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They sought declaratory relief stating that the Exclusion Provision violated due process and equal protection of the Fifth and First Amendments. The plaintiffs also filed for injunctive relief and a TRO prohibiting the enforcement of the Exclusion Provision and requiring the defendants to hold in escrow sufficient funds for the issuance of stimulus checks to members of the proposed class. Included in the proposed class were all U.S. citizens similarly situated who would otherwise qualify for the stimulus check. The plaintiffs also sought attorney fees and demanded a jury trial. The plaintiffs were represented by private attorneys, and the case was assigned to Judge J P Stadtmueller.
On March 27, President Trump announced the CARES Act, authorizing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to distribute up to $1200.00 to each eligible individual earning under $75,000. To qualify for the stimulus check, Section 2101 required an eligible individual’s spouse to provide a “valid identification number” on their most recent tax return filed with IRS, but only SSNs were accepted.
The plaintiffs argued that, as SSNs were only issued to citizens or immigrants with work authorization, Section 2101 was discriminatory on the basis of their fundamental right to marriage. In effect, the provision excluded otherwise qualifying individuals married to immigrants who used an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) instead of SSNs to pay their taxes. Both plaintiffs did not receive stimulus checks because their spouses lacked an SSN.
On June 30, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in several other U.S. District Courts. The plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation to stay the case, which was adopted by the judge on September 28.
The case will remain stayed until 7 days after a final decision has been rendered in one of the related cases,
Does v. Trump (PB-WI-0005),
Doe v. Trump (PB-IL-0014), and
Doe v. Trump (PB-CA-0055).
On August 10, 2020 in PB-WI-005, the District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin dismissed the case on the grounds that one or more of the related cases may be dispositive.
On September 2, 2020 in PB-CA-0055, the District Court for the Central District of California granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the need for speed and administrative efficiency in distributing the checks was a valid rational basis for the Exclusion Provision. 2020 WL 5492994. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 30 and the appeal was voluntarily dismissed on January 21, 2021.
On January 19, 2021 in PB-IL-0014, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs stated that, in December 2020, President Trump passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which contained a provision that amended the CARES Act to allow stimulus checks for a spouse or otherwise qualifying child as long as the valid identification number of at least one spouse was included on the tax return. Thus, the new act retroactively repealed and replaced the Exclusion Provision with one that provided substantially the same relief as sought by the plaintiffs.
As of March 11, 2021, this case is still stayed.
Averyn Lee - 07/12/2020
Zofia Peach - 03/11/2021
compress summary
