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 six different U.S. District Courts. The case is ongoing. The case is ongoing.

---

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 six different U.S. District Courts. The case is ongoing.

Averyn Lee - 07/12/2020


compress summary