Cert. Denied In Religious Objection To Use of Social Security Number

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied review in Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board, (Docket No. 19-66, certiorari denied 6/28/2021). (Order List). In the case, an Idaho appeals court dismissed free exercise challenges to the state's requirement that an applicant for a contractor's license furnish his Social Security number.  Federal child support enforcement laws require states to collect Social Security numbers as part of applications for professional licenses if the state wishes to be eligible for certain federal grants.  George Ricks refused to furnish his Social Security number because of his religious belief that Social Security numbers are a form of the Biblical "mark of the beast." (See prior posting.) The Idaho Supreme Court denied a petition for review. Reuters reports on the case and the denial of certiorari, pointing out that the cert. petition asked the Supreme Court to overrule the Smith case.

Religious Claim To Cancel Social Security Participation Fails

 In Davis El v. Saul, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 194196 (MD TN, Oct. 20, 2020), a Tennessee federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195880 (Aug. 31, 2020)) and dismissed a suit by plaintiff who claimed that his free exercise rights, and other constitutional rights, were violated because the government gave him no way to terminate his participation in the Social Security system. The court affirmed the magistrate's conclusion that the Anti-Injunction Act bars the suit.   The magistrate said in part:

Plaintiff does not deny that he could fill out and submit Form 4029 and thereby possibly receive a religious exemption. Instead, he argues that he should not have to follow the required procedure because he does not want a religious exemption to SSI; he wants to "cancel" the contract he perceives to exist between himself and SSA....

Plaintiff has provided no authority for his proposition that not being provided with an alternative to requesting a religious exemption is itself a First Amendment violation....

Because Plaintiff's claims ultimately seek to enjoin the assessment and collection of a federal tax and Plaintiff cannot satisfy either prong of the limited exception to the Anti-Injunction Act's jurisdictional bar, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims.

RFRA Claim For Insisting On Social Security Number In Passport Application Moves Ahead

 In Carmichael v. Pompeo, (D DC, Aug. 28, 2020), three individuals sued the State Department because it insisted that they furnish their Social Security numbers in order to renew their passports. Plaintiffs claim that identifying themselves with Social Security numbers violates their Christian beliefs. The court dismissed most of plaintiffs' claims, but allowed them to move forward, among others, with their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise:

They must choose between adhering to their religious beliefs—the sincerity of which is not challenged by the Government nor questioned by the Court—and receiving a government benefit.

Religious Opposition To Furnishing Social Security Number Fails

In Ricks v. State of Idaho Contractors Board, (ID App., Dec. 3, 2018), an Idaho appeals court dismissed free exercise challenges to the state's requirement that an applicant for a contractor's license furnish his Social Security number.  Federal child support enforcement laws require states to collect Social Security numbers as part of applications for professional licenses if the state wishes to be eligible for certain federal grants.  George Ricks refused to furnish his Social Security number because of his religious belief that Social Security numbers are a form of the Biblical "mark of the beast."

The court rejected on pre-emption grounds Ricks argument that the requirement violates Idaho's Free Exercise of Religion Protected Act (FERPA):

 [T]he operation of FERPA, in the context of the cooperative endeavor between Congress and the Idaho Legislature, does impede 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13)’s objective of improving child support enforcement effectiveness by exempting individuals from I.C. § 73-122’s and I.C. § 54-5210’s requirement of providing social security numbers on professional license applications. In other words, an exemption granted by FERPA would make it more difficult to locate a parent who may have outstanding child support obligations through the Federal Parent Locator Service database. Because this amounts to a direct conflict with Congress’s intent in passing 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13), 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(13) preempts FERPA in this context.

The court rejected Ricks' federal RFRA argument because no federal defendant was named. Finally it rejected his First Amendment and state constitution free exercise claims finding that the laws at issue are neutral laws of general applicability. The court also released a summary statement of its holding.

State Tax Deduction Available To Father Who Objected To Social Security Numbers For His Children

In Larsen v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, (IN Tx. Ct., July 31, 2017), the Indiana Tax Court held that a taxpayer who had religious objections to obtaining social security numbers for his children could still take dependency deductions for them.  Because federal tax authorities allowed alternative documentation for federal tax purposes, that suffices for state tax purposes as well.  The state tax statute merely requires that the dependency allowance was allowed by the IRS, even though the state tax form calls for more. Indiana Lawyer reports on the decision.

Required Use of Social Security Number Not a Free Exercise Violation

In Earl of the Family Cox v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74402 (D MD, June 7, 2016), a Maryland federal district court in a brief opinion rejected the argument by a pro se plaintiff that required use of  his Social Security number in the child support program violates his 1st Amendment free exercise rights.