COVID-19 Summary: This is a class action filed on May 6 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 temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the Exclusion Provision. On July 8, the court denied the temporary restraining order and on September 2, the court found that administrative efficiency was a valid rational basis for the Exclusion Provision and granted the government's motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed on September 30.
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 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California as a declaratory and injunctive action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that her exclusion from eligibility for the Stimulus Checks 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 Provision violated 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 § 6428 was not narrowly tailored to advance a compelling government interest, nor rationally related to any legitimate government interest. 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 for Stimulus Checks. 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 David O. Carter.
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 was a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or a qualifying residing alien with a valid SSN. Under § 6428, 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.
On May 8, the plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the Exclusion Provision. The same day, the case was transferred to Judge Stephen V. Wilson and Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott for all further proceedings.
On May 11, the defendants filed an opposition to the temporary restraining order, noting that the plaintiff had not applied for the benefit herself. The defendants asserted that until the plaintiff herself applied for the tax benefit and was denied by the IRS, she lacked Article III standing to bring the claim. The defendant also argued that the government was also entitled to sovereign immunity.
The complaint was amended on June 3 to add another plaintiff married to a non-citizen without an SSN who otherwise would have qualified for the benefit. On June 15, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and Attorneys United for Secure America both moved to file amicus briefs in support of the defendants, but their motions were denied. On July 8, the court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order, finding that the plaintiff did not have a substantial argument that the exclusion provision was not rational. 2020 WL 5076999. On July 13, the court denied the defendants motion to dismiss and requested further briefing that addressed whether the Exclusion Provision had a rational basis, and therefore was constitutional.
In supplemental briefs, the defendants argued that the Exclusion Provision was included to promote administrative efficiency and minimize delays in the distribution of checks. The plaintiffs argued that the Exclusion Provision discriminated on the basis of national origin and also compelled speech by forcing individuals to mark “married filing separately” on their tax return in order to receive the Stimulus Checks. The plaintiffs additionally claimed that the IRS had the capacity to distinguish which individuals met the requirements for the Stimulus Checks. Ultimately, the court held that the need for speed and administrative efficiency in distributing the checks was a valid rational basis for the Exclusion Provision, and on September 2 the court granted defendants motion to dismiss. 2020 WL 5492994.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 30.
The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 07/12/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/30/2020
compress summary
