Filed Date: May 6, 2020
Closed Date: Aug. 10, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
COVID-19 Summary: This is a class action filed on May 6, 2020 against the U.S. government to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a TRO prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the Exclusion Provision. On June 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in seven different U.S. District Courts. This case was dismissed in August 2020.
On May 6, 2020, an individual married to a spouse without a social security number (SSN) filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government to challenge the Exclusion Provision of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (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 Western District of Wisconsin as a declaratory and injunctive action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by private attorneys, the plaintiff’s proposed class sought to include all U.S. citizens married to a spouse without an SSN, and who filed joint tax returns with immigrants who would otherwise qualify. The plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of the Exclusion Provision and an order requiring the defendants to hold in escrow or earmark sufficient funds to issue Stimulus Checks to the proposed class. The plaintiff also sought attorney fees and class certification, and also requested a jury trial. The case was assigned to District Judge James D. Peterson and Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker.
On March 27, President Trump announced the CARES Act aimed to provide emergency assistance and health care response to individuals and families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act authorized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to distribute $1200.00 to each eligible individual who is U.S. citizens, permanent residents, or qualifying residing aliens with a valid SSN. Under Section 6428, or the Exclusion Provision, the applicant was also required to provide a “valid identification number,” or, an SSN of their spouse on their tax returns. The plaintiff, married to an immigrant with an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) but without an SSN, did not qualify for the Advance Payment.
The plaintiff argued that her exclusion from eligibility on the basis of her choice to marry a non-citizen was a violation of her First Amendment rights. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that the Exclusion clause was against the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as it infringed her fundamental choice to marry whom she wished. The plaintiff also argued that Section 6428 was not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest, no rationally related to any legitimate government interest.
On June 12, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case or in the alternative, to stay the case given that similar complaints already were filed in several other U.S. District Courts.
On August 7, the plaintiffs filed a joint stipulation to stay the case, and on August 10, the court dismissed the case without prejudice on the grounds that one or more of Does v. Trump, Doe v. Trump, or Doe v. Trump, could be dispositive. Doe v. Trump 8:20-cv-00858 and Doe v. Trump 1:20-cv-02531 only Doe v. Trump, 1:20-cv-02531 were voluntarily dismissed, and only Doe v. Trump, 1:20-cv-02531 is believed to be ongoing.
Summary Authors
Averyn Lee (7/12/2020)
Zofia Peach (3/11/2021)
Doe v. Trump, Northern District of Illinois (2020)
Doe v. Trump, Central District of California (2020)
Does v. Trump, Eastern District of Wisconsin (2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17135928/parties/doe-jane-v-trump-donald/
Crocker, Stephen L. (Wisconsin)
Abuzir, Omar A (Illinois)
Blaise, Heather Lea (Illinois)
Gavin, Elisabeth Anne (Illinois)
Conway, David Daly (Wisconsin)
Crocker, Stephen L. (Wisconsin)
Peterson, James Donald (Wisconsin)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/17135928/doe-jane-v-trump-donald/
Last updated Feb. 23, 2024, 4:28 a.m.
State / Territory: Wisconsin
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 6, 2020
Closing Date: Aug. 10, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All United States Citizens married to immigrants that file joint taxes wherein the immigrant-spouses file tax returns using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number who would have otherwise qualified for the Stimulus Check.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Federal
President of the United States, Federal
Senator and Sponsor of the CARES Act, Federal
U.S. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Federal
U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, Federal
United States of America, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis: