Undocumented Tax Filers Beat Bid to Dismiss Covid-19 Relief Suit

A provision within the federal Covid-19 relief law that prevents U.S. citizens with undocumented spouses from receiving emergency cash assistance could impose a discriminatory burden on the fundamental right of marriage, a federal court in Maryland ruled.

The suit, brought by 16 federal taxpayers who filed joint returns with undocumented spouses, alleges the provision violates the First and Fifth Amendments by excluding otherwise eligible individuals and their kids from getting the advanced refundable tax credit included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act’s $2.2 trillion stimulus package.

Wednesday’s ruling by Judge Ellen L. Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland allows the proposed class action seeking a court order against the provision to proceed.

The CARES Act (PL 116-136) provides payments of up to $1,200 for eligible individuals and $500 for each of the individual’s qualifying children under age 17.

A different judge with the District of Maryland ruled in June that children with at least one undocumented parent had standing to bring a similar equal protection claim.

Here, Hollander rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to dismiss the spouses’ suit in an order docketed Thursday.

The spouses have adequately alleged violations of due process, equal protection, and the right to freedom of association, said Hollander. And the court has jurisdiction based on the government’s waiver of its sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Hollander found that the provision clearly distinguishes between the proposed class and other similarly situated individuals based solely on the immigration status of their spouses, and the class plausibly alleges it burdens their fundamental right of marriage.

Further, the would-be class sufficiently argued the provision deprives each of their U.S. children of a $500 benefit, bringing financial harm based solely on the marital status of their parents.

“This pocketbook injury is the textbook example of injury of fact,” Hollander wrote for the court.

She rejected the government’s argument that because the tax year hadn’t ended, the plaintiffs may still become eligible for a CARES Act credit, or become ineligible for a reason other than the social security number requirement.

The First Amendment claim failed to allege freedom of speech violations because the provision doesn’t penalize the spouses for expressing their views on marriage.

But it does allege a plausible violation of associational rights, Hollander wrote. Marriage is indisputably an intimate association for the purposes of the First Amendment.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the Law Office of Robert P. Newman PC represent the proposed class. The U.S. Department of Justice represents the government.

The case is Amador v. Mnuchin, 2020 BL 295774, D. Md., No. 1:20-cv-01102, 8/5/20.