Iyengar v. Barnhart: Court Invalidates SSA Rule on "Nonwork" SSNs for Driver's License Applicants

IMMIGRANTS & PUBLIC BENEFITS

Driver's Licenses

IYENGAR V. BARNHART: COURT INVALIDATES SSA RULE ON "NONWORK" SSNS FOR DRIVER'S LICENSE APPLICANTS
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 16, No. 8, December 23, 2002

A federal district court in the District of Columbia has invalidated a Social Security Administration (SSA) rule that barred individuals from obtaining a "nonwork" Social Security number (SSN) in order to secure a state driver's license. The court held that the SSA rule was implemented without proper notice or opportunity for public comment, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

Iyengar v. Barnhart was brought on behalf of eight individuals from Illinois and Alabama who were in the U.S. lawfully as nonimmigrants, but who did not have authorization to work. Alabama and Illinois are among the nine states that currently require an SSN as a condition of obtaining a driver's license, without providing an exception for those who are not eligible or have not been assigned such a number. (For a more complete description of current driver's license policies and exemptions from these rules, see the table, "State Driver's License Requirements," available on NILC's Web site at www.nilc.org.).

Prior SSA policy provided access to "nonwork" SSNs for lawfully present persons who need the numbers in order to obtain a driver's license. In Mar. 2002, however, the SSA revised its operating instructions to eliminate state driver's licenses as a "valid nonwork purpose" for which these individuals can receive nonwork SSNs. (See SSA's Program Operations Manual System (POMS) RM 00203.510. See also "Nonwork SSNs No Longer Available for Driver's License Applicants," Immigrants' Rights Update, Apr. 12, 2002, p. 14.) The court found that the SSA rule represents a "complete reversal" of the SSA's prior understanding of its regulations and contradicts 20 years of administrative common law permitting access to SSNs for this purpose. If the SSA wishes to implement this rule, the court declared, it must provide notice and an opportunity for public comment.

The court declined to address the plaintiffs' substantive challenges to the SSA policy. They had argued that the rule violates the Social Security Act, which requires the SSA to assign numbers "to any individual who is an applicant for or recipient of benefits under any program financed in whole or in part from Federal funds . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 405(c)(2)(B)(ii). The plaintiffs also asserted that the rule violates SSA regulations, which allow the agency to assign SSNs to an individual who is "legally in the United States but not under authority of law permitting him or her to engage in employment, but only for a valid nonwork purpose." 20 C.F.R. §422.104. These challenges, the court reasoned, could be brought after a notice and comment period.

At this time, it is not clear whether the SSA will appeal the decision or attempt to reissue the rule through proper procedures.

Iyengar v. Barnhart, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22668 (Nov. 26, 2002).