IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHN DOE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., )

)

Defendants. )

_______________________________________)

Case No. 1:20-CV-2531

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF 

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Plaintiff John Doe moves the Court 

to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and submits as follows:

On December 27, 2020, Defendant Donald J. Trump signed into law the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021. Subtitle B of title II of division N of that legislation, which is 

captioned the “COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020,” among other things, amends certain 

provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), 

including the provision codified at I.R.C. § 6428(g), the so-called Exclusion Provision, which 

would have denied any CARES Act tax credit on a joint return unless both spouses on that return 

possessed and set forth on the return valid Social Security Numbers (SSNs) for each. 

Specifically, section 273(a)(3) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 replaces I.R.C.

§ 6428(g)(1)(B), which would have denied a CARES Act tax credit to either spouse on a joint 

return unless both had valid SSNs, with a new provision that, “[i]n the case of a joint return,”

allows a CARES Act tax credit of up to “$1,200 if the valid identification number of only 1 

spouse is included on the return of tax for the taxable year, and zero if the valid identification

number of neither spouse is so included.” Similarly, section 273(a)(3) of the COVID-related Tax 

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/19/21 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:846
2

Relief Act of 2020 also replaces I.R.C. § 6428(g)(1)(C), which would have denied a CARES Act 

tax credit to any otherwise qualifying child on a joint return unless both spouses on that return 

had valid SSNs, with a new provision that, “in the case of a joint return,” allows a CARES Act 

tax credit of up to $500, provided “the valid identification number of at least 1 spouse” on the 

return is included on it.

Further, section 273(b) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 provides that “[t]he 

amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in section 2201 of the CARES 

Act.” In sum, section 273(a)(3) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 retroactively 

repeals and replaces the Exclusion Provision with one that provides substantially the same relief 

that Plaintiff John Doe sought in this action for himself and others similarly situated.1

Accordingly, this “case is moot” because “the issues presented are no longer live,” and

“the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 

440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979) (quotation and punctuation omitted). In particular, the enactment of 

section 273(a)(3) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 leaves “no reasonable 

expectation that the alleged violation will recur.” Id. (quotation, punctuation, and alteration 

omitted). And the retroactive effect of that provision has “completely and irrevocably eradicated 

the effects of the alleged violation.” Id. (quotation and punctuation omitted).

Because Plaintiff’s action no longer represents a “case or controversy,” within the 

meaning of Article III, section 2 of the Constitution, the Court does not retain subject matter 

jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403, 407

(1972) (stating that a federal court’s “lack of jurisdiction to review moot cases derives from the 

1 While the changes to I.R.C. § 6428(g) made by section 273(a)(3) of the COVID-related Tax Relief Act of 2020 

apply for purposes of determining eligibility for a CARES Act tax credit under I.R.C. § 6428(a), they do not affect 

the eligibility for an advance refund of that credit under I.R.C. § 6428(f). Resultantly, Plaintiff John Doe and others 

similarly situated will not receive any payment unless and until they file their 2020 tax returns, and even then, only 

to the extent that the CARES Act tax credit exceeds their tax liability for the year.

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/19/21 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:847
3

requirement of Article III of the Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power depends 

upon the existence of a case or controversy” (quotation and punctuation omitted)).

Plaintiff therefore moves that the Court dismiss the action for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

Dated: January 19, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

JOHN DOE, individually and on behalf of 

others similarly situated (collectively 

“Their”)

By: /s/ Lana B. Nassar

Lana B. Nassar

Blaise & Nitschke, P.C. 

123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

T: (312) 448-6602 

F: (312) 803-1940 

lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

One of Their attorneys

By: /s/ Guinevere Moore

Guinevere Moore

Moore Tax Law Group LLC

150 N. Clark, Suite 1250

Chicago, IL 60606

T: (312) 549-9990

F: (312) 549-9991

Guinevere.moore@mooretaxlawgroup.com

One of Their attorneys

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/19/21 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:848
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on the 19th day of January, 2021, she caused the foregoing 

instrument to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois using the CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Lana B. Nassar

Lana B. Nassar

Blaise & Nitschke, P.C.

123 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 250

Chicago, Illinois 60606

T: (312) 448-6602

F: (312) 803-1940

lnassar@blaisenitschkelaw.com

ARDC No. 6319396

Case: 1:20-cv-02531 Document #: 71 Filed: 01/19/21 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:849