COVID-19 Summary: This is a putative class action complaint filed by seven children and their parents against the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States, challenging the social security number (SSN) requirement of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. The ...
read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a putative class action complaint filed by seven children and their parents against the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States, challenging the social security number (SSN) requirement of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the refusal of economic impact payments due to the parents’ undocumented status, as well as monetary damages. On May 22, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss which was denied on June 19. The case is ongoing.
On May 5, seven children and their parents filed a putative class-action against the Secretary of the Treasury and the United States, challenging the social security number (SSN) requirement of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. On March 27, President Trump announced the CARES Act aimed to provide economic impact payments to those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act authorized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to distribute $1200.00 to each eligible individual with a social insurance number (SSN). The plaintiffs alleged that the SSN requirement was discriminatory as SSNs were only issued to citizens and immigrants with work authorization. The plaintiffs noted that immigrants without work authorization used an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to pay their income taxes, which was not accepted. The plaintiffs further alleged that as a result, the Act discriminated against children with undocumented parents in violation of the due process clause under the Fifth Amendment. Filed in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting the refusal of economic impact payments due to the parents’ undocumented status. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages awarding $500 to each citizen child plaintiff or to the parent plaintiffs. Represented by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and Villanova University, the plaintiffs sought to represent all children with one or both parents with undocumented status. The plaintiffs also sought attorney fees. The case was assigned to Judge Paul W. Grimm.
The plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of all U.S. citizen children under age 17 who had been or would be denied the benefits of economic impact payments for “qualified children” under the CARES Act solely because the children have a parent who is an undocumented immigrant who has no social security number. They also sought to certify a second class for damages, defined as: persons whose U.S. citizen children have not received the benefits of economic impact payments for “qualified children” under the CARES Act solely because at least one of the children’s parents is an undocumented immigrant who has no social security number.
On May 22, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked both Article III and statutory standing because qualifying children are not entitled to the tax credit. They also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state an equal protection claim since there was no impermissible alienage classification as the CARES Act turns on whether a person has an SSN, not alienage. Finally, they argued that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction due to sovereign immunity.
On June 19, the defendant’s motion to dismiss was denied. 2020 WL 3402300. The court found that the plaintiffs had Article III standing and adequately alleged an equal protection claim despite not being direct recipients of the credit. The court also found jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, a statute that waives immunity protection and authorizes monetary claims founded upon the constitution. Since the plaintiffs’ claims for relief arose under the constitution and the CARES Act can be interpreted as a money-mandating statute, the court found subject matter jurisdiction.
The defendants filed an answer on July 10. Two plaintiffs filed stipulations of dismissal on October 22. The court is expected to schedule a summary judgment briefing.
The case is ongoing.
Averyn Lee - 07/12/2020
Chandler Hart-McGonigle - 11/30/2020
compress summary
