Carmichael v. Blinken
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-2316 (RC) |
| Decision Date | 25 March 2022 |
| Parties | DAVID ALAN CARMICHAEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Secretary of State, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Plaintiffs David Alan Carmichael, Lawrence Donald Lewis, and Mitchell Pakosz bring this case against Defendants Antony J. Blinken, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and the U.S. State Department regarding Plaintiffs' attempts to obtain passports without providing social security numbers. Plaintiffs assert that identifying with a social security number is prohibited by their Christian faith and requested religious accommodations. They initially brought nine causes of action against Defendants under various federal laws. Three causes of action remained after the Court's opinion resolving Defendants' earlier motion: the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), the Fifth Amendment, and the Privacy Act. As explained below, Plaintiffs' claims for damages are dismissed, Defendants' motion regarding mootness is denied, and the parties are ordered to file a joint status report within 60 days either describing Defendants' progress toward complying with Plaintiffs' proposed procedures or proposing a briefing schedule to resolve the remaining mootness issues.
In 2007, Plaintiffs Carmichael and Pakosz applied for U.S. passports and both asked for a religious accommodation exempting them from the requirement that they provide their social security numbers on the application. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16-17, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff Lewis did the same in 2008. Id. ¶ 18. All three plaintiffs received passports despite not including their social security numbers on their passport applications. Id. ¶¶ 16-18. Carmichael, Lewis, and Pakosz assert that they are “prohibited from identifying with a Social Security Number . . . on the basis of the Christian religion” and “[a]ny demand for either of them to identify with a [social security number] places a substantial burden upon their religion.” Id. ¶ 14. While Carmichael, Lewis, and Pakosz allege that they were granted a religious accommodation when they were originally issued passports, see Id. ¶¶ 16-18, the Government asserts that “[t]here was no consideration of [a] claim for a religious accommodation, ” and applicants were not required to provide social security numbers in their passport applications at that time, Rolbin Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 24-2. However, The Government notes that the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (“FAST”) Act, enacted in 2015, granted the Government the authority to “deny a passport application if the applicant fails to provide their [social security number].” Id.
In 2018, Carmichael applied to renew his passport and, again, he requested a religious accommodation to the requirement that he provide his social security number in his passport renewal application. Am. Compl. ¶ 19. Lewis and Pakosz applied to renew their passports, also including a request for a religious accommodation, in 2019 and 2017, respectively. Id. ¶¶ 20-21. With their passport renewal applications, Carmichael, Lewis, and Pakosz sent letters to the Government explaining why identifying with a social security number violated their religious beliefs. See Id. ¶¶ 19, 42-43, 55, 57. Plaintiffs' passport renewal applications were also accompanied by a “Privacy Act Statement” from the Government that outlined the authority under which the Government requested Plaintiffs' social security numbers, the purpose of requesting the social security numbers, and a non-exhaustive list of routine uses for information collected from passport renewal applications. Id. ¶ 104; see also Pls.' Mem. Supp. Resp. Mot. Dismiss & Cross Mot. Summ. J. ( ) ¶ 57(ii), ECF No. 27-1 (). The “Privacy Act Statement” also included a statement that, while providing the requested information was voluntary, failing to provide that information could result in a processing delay or application denial. Am. Compl. ¶ 104; see also Pls.' Mem. ¶ 57(ii).
Carmichael's passport renewal was approved, and his renewed passport was issued in January 2018 without Carmichael providing his social security number on his application. Am. Compl. ¶ 19. However, the government contacted Lewis and Pakosz, asking each to either provide their social security number or sign a statement that they had never been issued one. Id. ¶¶ 46, 56. Both Lewis and Pakosz responded that they could not sign a statement that they had never been issued a social security number and reiterated their request for a religious accommodation. See Id. ¶¶ 47, 56-67. Both Lewis and Pakosz's passport renewal applications were subsequently denied. Id. ¶¶ 49, 68. Neither Lewis nor Pakosz was given the opportunity to appeal the denial. Id. ¶¶ 26, 82; see also Id. ¶ 124 ().
After Pakosz's application was denied, Pakosz contacted Carmichael for assistance and, on Pakosz's behalf, Carmichael spoke to an employee of the government who stated that there was no appeal process for the denial of a religious accommodation. Id. ¶¶ 26-27. Carmichael and Pakosz then filed Freedom of Information Act requests for the names and contact information of Department employees involved in processing passport applications, see Id. ¶¶ 29, 73, and sent letters to various politicians, including President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, among others, further explaining their request for a religious accommodation, id. ¶¶ 31, 69-71, 76-79, 86. Enclosed with one letter to the government, Pakosz states that he “sent information that explains the SSN offence against religion in a document called ‘The Mark of The Beast . . . It Is Here, Now.'” Id. ¶ 69.
Approximately three months later, Carmichael received a letter from the government stating that his renewed passport had been issued erroneously because he did not provide his social security number in his passport renewal application, that his passport had been revoked pursuant to 22 C.F.R. § 51.62(a)(2), and that he could request an appeal hearing. Id. ¶ 33. Carmichael seemingly did not request a hearing. Def. Mot. Dismiss at 20, ECF No. 24; see also Am. Compl. (nowhere mentioning that Carmichael availed himself of this opportunity for a hearing).
Carmichael brought this action on July 31, 2019, see Compl., ECF No. 1, and Plaintiffs Lewis and Pakosz were added to this action in November 2019, see Order, ECF No. 11. Carmichael, Lewis, and Pakosz filed their amended complaint in December 2019, in which they raised nine causes of action under the United States Constitution and various federal laws. See Am. Compl. Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, on all nine causes of action. Carmichael, Lewis, and Pakosz moved for partial summary judgment and requested an injunction on their first cause of action under the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. See Pls. Mem.
The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss on several grounds, and denied Defendants' motion on three grounds. Carmichael, 486 F.Supp.3d at 377. Remaining after that opinion were Plaintiffs' second, fourth (with respect to Lewis and Pakosz), and seventh causes of action, which concern RFRA, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, and the Privacy Act, respectively. Id. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint regarding Carmichael's claim for a Fifth Amendment violation, id., and they did so, 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 51.
A few months later, Defendants moved to voluntarily remand this matter to the State Department so it could “reconsider its prior renewal and revocation actions, ” after “acknowledge[ing] that it did not previously consider Plaintiffs' religious accommodation requests.” Defs.' Mot. Voluntary Remand at 1, 5, ECF No. 61. The Court granted this motion over Plaintiffs' objection and remanded the passport applications to the State Department for 90 days. Min. Order (Jan. 20, 2021). The Court encouraged Plaintiffs “to comply with Defendants' reasonable requests for further information in furtherance of Defendants' efforts on remand.” Id.
During the remand period, Plaintiffs filed several motions objecting to the remand, which are discussed below. After most of these were filed, the Court denied one of these motions and stated that “[t]he Court does not intend to dissolve the remand order.” Min. Order (Apr. 19, 2021). The Court noted that “Plaintiffs brought this case in order to obtain Passports without having to identify with a Social Security Number, ” Defendants were...
To continue reading
Request your trial