Opinion ID: 3048595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hansen’s Remaining Claims

Text: Hansen’s complaint also seeks an order declaring that: (1) he and his son are not required to have or use an SSN, and (2) “various treasury regulations” unconstitutionally discriminate against Hansen based on his religious beliefs.9 The district court dismissed these claims, concluding that although no statute specifically requires an individual to obtain an SSN, 7 Because we conclude that the Anti-Injunction Act removed jurisdiction from the district court over Hansen’s § 1402(g) claims, we need not decide whether the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, would also bar Hansen’s action for declaratory relief regarding § 1402(g). See, e.g., Bob Jones Univ., 416 U.S. at 732 n.7 (noting that “the federal tax exemption to the Declaratory Judgment Act is at least as broad as the Anti-Injunction Act,” but declining to decide whether the Declaratory Judgment Act barred suit after having decided suit was barred under the Anti-Injunction Act). 8 Because we conclude the district court lacks jurisdiction over Hansen’s § 1402(g) claims, Hansen’s appeal from the denial of his countermotion for summary judgment seeking a § 1402(g) exemption is moot. 9 Hansen has standing to bring these claims because his complaint sufficiently alleges an injury-in-fact (compelled use of an SSN), fairly traceable to the government’s actions (denying his request for an ITIN), that is likely to be redressed by a favorable disposition. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). HANSEN v. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 5167 various statutes and regulations make clear that an SSN is required and that the government has a compelling interest in maintaining a sound social security and tax system, and that the SSN requirement—with its limited exceptions—is narrowly tailored to this interest. [7] We affirm the dismissal of these claims because Hansen’s complaint fails to specify the particular statutes and regulations requiring use of an SSN that he objects to, but instead seeks a general declaration that he and his son are entitled to never use an SSN and that “various treasury regulations” are unconstitutional. Without knowing the particular regulations and statutes to which Hansen objects, it is impossible to gauge the relevant governmental interest and assess Hansen’s First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause challenges.10 Accordingly, with respect to these claims, Hansen’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and the district court’s dismissal—albeit on other grounds— was not in error.