Futia v. United States

Background

Anthony J. Futia, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, sued the United States. He alleged that the government violated his rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing and collecting federal income taxes while failing to respond to his petitions claiming that the income-tax system was unconstitutional. Futia alleged that the Social Security Administration withheld money from his monthly Social Security payments at the Internal Revenue Service’s direction to pay unpaid taxes.

Futia sought a declaration that he was not liable for specified taxes, a refund for taxes he said he paid under protest, and an injunction stopping the government from collecting taxes by levy. He also moved for preliminary relief seeking to stop the withholding and have previously collected funds returned while the case continued. The United States moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), which address subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

The court held that sovereign immunity, which generally protects the federal government from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued, barred Futia’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning his tax liability and tax collection. The Declaratory Judgment Act does not permit courts to issue declarations concerning federal taxes. The Tax Anti-Injunction Act also generally bars lawsuits seeking to stop the assessment or collection of taxes. The court ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act did not provide a way around those limits.

The court nevertheless construed Futia’s filings as asserting separate First Amendment Petition Clause and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims based on the government’s alleged failure to respond to his petitions. It ruled that the Administrative Procedure Act waived sovereign immunity for those claims to the extent they sought a government response rather than prohibited tax-related declaratory or injunctive relief. The court therefore considered those claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

First Amendment Claim

The court dismissed Futia’s First Amendment claim. It explained that the right to petition protects a person’s ability to communicate with government officials, but does not require officials to listen or provide a response. Because Futia alleged that he had submitted petitions to government officials, rather than alleging that the government prevented him from communicating, the court found that he had not plausibly alleged a violation of the Petition Clause.

Due-Process Claims

The court also dismissed Futia’s due-process claims. It stated that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to impose a direct, non-apportioned federal income tax and that federal income taxes are constitutional. It further stated that imposing or withholding income taxes, including using a levy to collect unpaid taxes, does not itself violate due process. Futia’s claim that the tax was unconstitutional because the government did not respond to his petitions could not proceed because he had no constitutional right to receive such a response.

Preliminary Relief and Leave to Amend

Because the court dismissed the case in its entirety, it denied Futia’s motion for preliminary relief as moot, meaning the court did not need to decide the motion’s merits. The court declined to grant leave to amend because it found that the defects in Futia’s claims were substantive and could not be cured by additional or improved allegations.

Disposition

The court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss. It denied Futia’s motion for preliminary relief as moot, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, instructed the clerk to terminate the motions, and closed the case.