UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1584

JUANA RUEDA,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JANET L. YELLEN, sued in her official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury; 

DANIEL I. WERFEL, sued in his official capacity as U.S. Commissioner of Internal 

Revenue; U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; UNITED STATES INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Ellen Lipton Hollander, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01102-ELH)

Argued: October 26, 2023 Decided: November 30, 2023

Before KING, THACKER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: Andrea E. Senteno, MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & 

EDUCATIONAL FUND, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Ellen Page DelSole, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: 

Thomas A. Saenz, Los Angeles, California, Rosa G. Saavedra Vanacore, MEXICAN 

AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellant. David A. Hubbert, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Bethany B. Hauser, Tax 

Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Erek L. 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 1 of 6
2

Barron, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 2 of 6
3

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiff Juana Rueda initiated this putative class action in April 2020 in the District 

of Maryland, alleging that certain provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 

Security Act (the “CARES Act”) are unconstitutional because they preclude her from 

receiving a stimulus payment due to her marital status and the fact that her husband does 

not have a social security number. The named defendants are Janet L. Yellen, the Secretary 

of the Treasury; Daniel I. Werfel, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue; plus the 

Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. 

To alleviate the severe economic crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the 

CARES Act was enacted into law on March 27, 2020. See Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 

(2020). A primary form of relief created therein was economic stimulus payments to 

eligible individuals, to be distributed through the federal tax system. Codified at 26 U.S.C. 

§ 6428, the relevant portion of the CARES Act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to 

disburse the authorized stimulus payments to eligible individuals. In the form of a 

refundable tax credit, an eligible individual would receive $1,200, and eligible jointly filing 

married couples would receive $2,400, plus an additional $500 per qualifying child. As 

enacted, certain provisions precluded an otherwise eligible individual from receiving any 

economic stimulus payment if a tax return was jointly filed with a spouse who lacked a 

social security number.

Rueda is a United States citizen and mother of three children who are also citizens. 

She lives in Ohio with her husband who, because of his immigration status, does not 

possess a social security number. Rueda and her husband had filed a joint tax return in 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 3 of 6
4

2019, and she was thus precluded from receiving any economic stimulus payment under 

the original CARES Act, as it was enacted in March 2020. In December 2020, Congress 

amended the CARES Act and changed a provision that barred otherwise eligible 

individuals from receiving any stimulus payment due to that individual’s marital status. 

By her operative Second Amended Complaint of April 2021 (the “Complaint”),

Rueda alleges that the CARES Act continues to preclude her from qualifying for a full 

economic stimulus payment. That is, she alleges that, due to her marital status, she is 

effectively barred from receiving the $500 credit attributable to her eldest child. She 

maintains that such a deprivation contravenes her fundamental right of marriage protected 

by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, her rights under the equal protection 

component of the Fifth Amendment, and her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech 

and association. Rueda thus seeks a declaration that the contested CARES Act provisions 

are unconstitutional, plus an injunction against those provisions being used by the

defendants to deprive her, and all others similarly situated, of the $500 refundable tax credit 

associated with a dependent child of an eligible individual.

In May 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss Rueda’s Complaint as barred by the 

Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Put succinctly, the Anti-Injunction 

Act serves as a bar to a lawsuit that is “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or 

collection of any tax” or “other activities . . . that may culminate in the assessment or 

collection of taxes.” See Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Rossotti, 317 F.3d 401, 404-05 (4th Cir. 2003)

(citing 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a)). In addition, the Declaratory Judgment Act contains a taxexclusion provision that was enacted to reaffirm the tax assessment and collection 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 4 of 6
5

restrictions of the Anti-Injunction Act. See Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 732 

n.7 (1974) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2201). That is, the purpose of the Declaratory Judgment 

Act’s tax-exclusion provision is to “prevent taxpayers from using the Declaratory 

Judgment Act to do what they were prohibited from doing under the Anti-Injunction Act.” 

See In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co., 99 F.3d 573, 583 (4th Cir. 1996) (alteration and 

internal quotations marks omitted). Therefore, the Declaratory Judgment Act’s taxexclusion provision has an “underlying intent and practical effect” that is coextensive with 

the Anti-Injunction Act. Id.

As carefully explained by the district court in its Memorandum Opinion of March

2022, the court dismissed Rueda’s Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. See Rueda v. Yellen, No. 1:20-cv-01102 (D. Md. Mar. 7, 2022), ECF No. 83 

(the “Opinion”). By its Opinion, the court ruled that Rueda’s lawsuit was barred by the 

Anti-Injunction Act because it aimed to restrain the “assessment or collection of a tax.” Id.

at 28. That is, Rueda’s lawsuit sought to enjoin the defendants from depriving a tax credit 

to certain eligible individuals, and such an injunction would reduce the ultimate tax liability 

of those eligible individuals. Id. at 30. As the Opinion recognized, it was of no 

consequence that a tax credit decreases one’s tax obligation, for “taxes and tax credits are 

two sides of the same coin.” Id. The court then pointed out that because the AntiInjunction Act barred Rueda’s lawsuit, so did the Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. at 35. 

By way of this appeal, Rueda contests the district court’s dismissal of her Complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We review such a dismissal de novo. See Berkley 

v. Mt. Valley Pipeline, LLC, 896 F.3d 624, 629 (4th Cir. 2018). Having thoroughly 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 5 of 6
6

examined the record of these proceedings and carefully considered the competing

contentions of the parties, we are satisfied to adopt the well-crafted Opinion of the district 

court. In so ruling, we emphasize that a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the deprivation

of a refundable tax credit constitutes a lawsuit “for the purpose of restraining the 

assessment or collection of any tax,” and is therefore barred by both the Anti-Injunction 

Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. 

Pursuant to the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1584 Doc: 33 Filed: 11/30/2023 Pg: 6 of 6