The anonymous man claims that President Donald Trump and others violated his civil rights by withholding his stimulus check because of his marriage to an immigrant without a Social Security number. However, he failed to supply compelling evidence as to why he's entitled to remain anonymous, the judge said Wednesday.
Without a more "particularized fear of retribution, plaintiff has failed to establish that proceeding anonymously outweighs the public policy in favor of identified parties," U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman said in her order.
The man, referred to as John Doe in the complaint, contends that Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin deprived him of his rights of association, due process and equal protection under the law. He is participating in a putative class action.
The man said that he's married to an immigrant who files tax returns with an individual taxpayer identification number issued by the IRS, and that they file joint tax returns.
Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act
, or CARES Act, enacted in late March, some U.S. citizens with Social Security numbers are eligible for the $1,200-per-adult and $500-per-child stimulus benefit. But the man claims that the government deemed him ineligible based on whom he chose to marry and says he has not received his check.The U.S. government previously argued that the man had not satisfied the requirements for remaining anonymous because he failed to identify the "exceptional circumstances" that would permit that. Similarly situated individuals have identified themselves in other legal proceedings without issue, the government said.
If John Doe were to reveal his identity, he would potentially face backlash from both the government and society at large, his counsel, Lana B. Nassar of Blaise & Nitschke PC, previously told Law360.
While the nature of immigration issues in the country is currently "volatile," the court still presumes that the government would act lawfully if and when it's presented with a case involving John Doe's family, Judge Coleman said.
Therefore, without evidence to the contrary, his argument that he would face some kind of government reprisal if he were to shed his anonymity in this case has not convinced the court that he should maintain that status, she said.
The man's position "does not establish 'exceptional circumstances' under controlling Seventh Circuit law, let alone plaintiff's generalized fear of humiliation and harassment," Judge Coleman said, referring to the standard by which courts may grant anonymity.
Legal representatives of John Doe declined to comment.
The U.S. government declined to comment.
John Doe is represented by Lana B. Nassar, Elisabeth A. Gavin, Heather L. Blaise and Thomas J. Nitschke of Blaise & Nitschke PC and by Vivian Khalaf and Omar Abuzir of Khalaf & Abuzir LLC.
The U.S. government is represented by Jordan Konig and Christopher J. Williamson of the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division.
The case is John Doe et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al., case number 1:20-cv-02531, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
--Additional reporting by Hannah Albarazi. Editing by Neil Cohen.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
