A Colorado federal court
properly dismissed Jeffrey T. Maehr's arguments contesting the
constitutionality of the program allowing the Internal Revenue Service to certify a person's tax debt as seriously
delinquent in order to limit their passport use, a three-judge panel said in a
published opinion. The panel's review of the case was the first by a federal
appeals court to consider the constitutionality of the passport certification
program enacted in 2015.
The judges disagreed on the appropriate standard
of review to apply to Maehr's assertions that the passport program violates
substantive due process, with Circuit Judges Scott M. Matheson Jr. and George
A. Phillips saying that the most favorable standard for the federal government
should apply to that argument.
But all three judges ultimately concurred that
Maehr's two other arguments — that there are protections for international
travel in the U.S. Constitution and that certain standards for passport
revocation should be applied — did not pass muster. And while Circuit Judge
Carlos Lucero said he believed that a somewhat stricter standard of review
should be applied to Maehr's due process arguments, Maehr failed to make a
case for that standard on appeal, according to the opinion.
Maehr's $250,000 outstanding federal tax debt
was certified by the IRS in 2018 as seriously delinquent, which led to the
State Department's revocation of his passport, according to the opinion. The
IRS certified that debt under Internal Revenue Code Section 7345 , under which federal tax liabilities can be certified as
"seriously delinquent" if they exceed $50,000. The passport
revocation program was likely intended to encourage tax compliance by
threatening to limit a person's ability to travel internationally, according to
the Tenth Circuit's opinion.
Maehr sued the federal government over the
program in November 2018. The Colorado federal court dismissed his complaint in
February 2020, saying Maehr didn't prove the government violated the
Constitution in revoking his passport.
On appeal, Maehr argued that provisions known as
the privileges and immunities clauses under Article IV, Section 2 of the
Constitution and under the Fourteenth Amendment limit the government's right to
restrict international travel. Moreover, standards that apply to the writ of ne
exeat republica, which can confine a person to a particular jurisdiction,
should apply to the passport revocation program, Maehr contended.
But in the unanimous portion of their opinion on
Tuesday, the judges said Maehr's arguments concerning the clauses and the writ
of ne exeat republica were misplaced. For instance, the privileges and
immunities clauses don't deal with international travel but instead address
interstate travel, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never understood these clauses
to apply to international travel, the opinion said.
But the judges disagreed on arguments advanced
by Maehr contending that the passport revocation provision violates substantive
due process. Writing for the majority on the due process issue, Judge Matheson
said Maehr didn't prove international travel is a fundamental human right that
would require the court to review his passport revocation using the strict
scrutiny standard.
That review is more stringent than the rational
basis test, which is used when no fundamental rights are disputed and is
"more deferential" to the government, the majority opinion said. The
passport revocation provision passes muster under that standard, as the
government has a reasonable interest in raising money through taxes, Judge
Matheson said.
But that rational basis test might not have been the appropriate standard to apply to Maehr's due process claims, Judge Lucero said in his separate opinion. While Maehr didn't himself advocate for the intermediate scrutiny standard, compelling the judge to still agree to dismiss the case, international travel is too historically and culturally important to apply the rational basis standard in this dispute, Judge Lucero said.
"To pass constitutional review, laws limiting international travel may not require a compelling governmental interest, as strict scrutiny would demand," Judge Lucero said. "But on the other hand, the court's cases do not consign international travel to the cavernous abyss of rational basis review."
The passport certification program has been subject to challenges in the lower courts. For instance, the U.S. Tax Court recently rejected a constitutional challenge to the program, saying in a decision in March that the law doesn't violate the Fifth Amendment.
A Georgia federal court likewise found that IRC Section 7345 didn't violate the due process clause or other language in the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment