Court filing
First Amended Verified Complaint — American Association of Political Consultants v. SBA (D.D.C.)
Filed April 15, 2020 in AAPC v. SBA; one of 3 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-04-15 |
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · No. 1:20-cv-00970-RCL · Doc. 8 · 2020-04-15 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
)
POLITICAL CONSULTANTS
)
1775 Tysons Blvd, 5th Floor
)
McLean, VA 22102
)
)
RIDDER/BRADEN, INC.
)
1600 Broadway, Suite 1600
)
Denver, CO 80202
)
) No. 1:20-cv-00970
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
UNITED STATES
)
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
)
409 3rd St, S.W.
)
Washington DC 20416
)
)
-and-
)
)
JOVITA CARRANZA
)
In her Official Capacity as
)
Administrator of the
)
U.S. Small Business Administration
)
409 3rd St, S.W.
)
Washington DC 20416
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________________ )
FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiffs American Association of Political Consultants, on behalf of its members
and Ridder/Braden, Inc., (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action for declaratory and
injunctive relief, against the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and Jovita Carranza,
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 1 of 30
2
in her official capacity as Administrator of the SBA, (collectively, “Defendants”) and
complain as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
In response to the devastating effect that government measures to combat
the COVID-19 virus have had on the United States economy, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) established the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”) Loans. These Loans, which are administered and guaranteed by the SBA, assist
small businesses with expenses such as payroll, health insurance, and rent expenses during
the COVID-19 emergency and permit some recipients to qualify for loan forgiveness. Due
to SBA regulations, however, businesses primarily engaged in political or lobbying
activities are ineligible for PPP loans (hereinafter the “Political Speech Prohibition”),
despite the dire need for economic relief. 13 C.F.R. 120.110(r).
2.
Denial of such important and valuable economic relief based on an
otherwise eligible recipient’s political or civic involvement clearly violates free speech and
equal protection. Specifically, the Political Speech Prohibition violates the First
Amendment because it constitutes an unconstitutional condition on speech as well as a
content-based speech ban. Excluding businesses primarily engaged in political speech
activities from the PPP also deprives them of equal protection in violation of the Fifth
Amendment because other similarly situated businesses are eligible for those loans. Such
violations are made ever so much more egregious given the dire economic straits resulting
from the COVID-19 measures prescribed by the government.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 2 of 30
3
3.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring an as-applied challenge against the SBA
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit the SBA from excluding Plaintiffs and
other businesses primarily engaged in political and lobbying activity from PPP loans.
PARTIES
4.
The American Association of Political Consultants (“AAPC”) is a trade
association organized under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(6). AAPC’s address is 1775 Tysons Blvd,
5th Floor, McLean, VA 22102.
5.
AAPC was founded in 1969 and is a multi-partisan organization consisting
of political and public affairs professionals. AAPC has over 1,500 members making it the
largest association of political and public affairs professionals. Members include political
consultants, media consultants, pollsters, campaign managers, corporate public affairs
officers, professors, fund-raisers, congressional staffers, vendors, and lobbyists.
6.
AAPC’s membership includes individuals who engage in the political
process at varying levels, ranging from local to national politics, and everything in-
between. AAPC has its headquarters in McLean, Virginia. Many AAPC members are
ineligible for PPP.
7.
AAPC member GR Pro, LLC is a multi-member limited liability company
incorporated in Oklahoma. Robinson Aff. at ¶¶ 2, 4 (attached as Exhibit D). GR Pro, LLC
is located at 316 NW 61st Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118. GR Pro, LLC is a full-
service political consulting firm providing services to its clients at the federal, state, and
local level. Id. at ¶ 3. GR Pro, LLC focuses its efforts at advancing its clients’ candidacies
for office and ballot measures, and occasionally engages in lobbying. Id. GR Pro, LLC is
a member of the AAPC. Id. at ¶ 6. GR Pro, LLC has already been forced to let go of a
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 3 of 30
4
portion of their independent contractors due to the economic turmoil created by COVID-
19 measures. Id. at ¶ 8. Absent a PPP loan, GR Pro, LLC will suffer even greater financial
hardship. Id. at ¶ 9. GR Pro, LLC intends to apply for a loan through PPP. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 15.
GR Pro, LLC has not yet applied because it is ineligible due to the SBA’s Political Speech
Prohibition. Id. GR Pro, LLC is otherwise eligible to participate in PPP. Id. at ¶¶ 18-21.
8.
AAPC member Karabell Industries, LLC (“Karabell Industries”) is a
political consulting firm in St Louis Missouri. Karabell Aff. at ¶¶ 2, 6 (attached as Exhibit
F). Karabell Industries is located at 4147 West Pin Blvd., Suite 3, Saint Louis, Missouri
63108. Karabell Industries is a full-service political consulting and lobbing firm servicing
its clients at the federal, state, and local levels. Id. at ¶ 3. As a result of the COVID-19
emergency, Karabell Industries has been forced to lay off some of its employees and
reduced its work with independent contractors. Id. at ¶¶ 7-9. Because, absent a loan through
the PPP, Karabell Industries would suffer even greater financial hardship it applied for a
PPP loan through Busey Bank in St. Louis, Missouri. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. On or about April 6,
2020, Karabell Industries was informed that it was ineligible for a PPP loan due to the
SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13. But for the SBA’s Political Speech
Prohibition, Karabell Industries is eligible to obtain a PPP loan. Id. at ¶¶ 14-24.
9.
Plaintiff Ridder\Braden, Inc. is a political consulting firm that occasionally
engages in lobbying, in Denver, Colorado. Ridder Aff. at ¶¶ 2-3 (attached as Exhibit E).
Ridder/Braden, Inc.’s address is 1600 Broadway, Suite 1600, Denver, CO 80202.
Ridder\Braden, Inc., performs primarily general political consulting services and public
opinion polling services to candidates and ballot measures at the federal, state, and local
levels. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3, 5. In addition, a small amount of the firm’s business is general public
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 4 of 30
5
affairs. One of its owners is currently a Colorado registered lobbyist for the Rocky
Mountain Wolf Action Fund. Id. at ¶ 4. Ridder\Braden, Inc., focuses its business at
advancing its clients’ candidacies for office and ballot measures, and policy goals.
Ridder\Braden, Inc. is also a member of the AAPC. Id. at ¶ 7. Ridder\Braden, Inc. has
already been forced to reduce their use of independent contractors due to the economic
turmoil created by COVID-19 measures. Id. at ¶ 9. Absent a PPP loan, Ridder\Braden, Inc.
will suffer even greater financial hardship. Id. at ¶ 10. Ridder\Braden, Inc. intends to apply
for a loan through PPP. Id. at ¶¶ 11, 16. Ridder\Braden, Inc. has not yet applied because it
is ineligible due to the SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition. Id. at ¶ 11. Ridder\Braden, Inc.
is otherwise eligible to participate in PPP. Id. at ¶¶ 12-13, 19-22.
10.
Defendant SBA is tasked with assisting and protecting the interests of small
businesses by providing financial, contractual, and business development assistance,
particularly when small businesses are victims of a disaster. 13 C.F.R. § 101.100. The SBA
is located at 409 3rd St, S.W. Washington DC 20416. SBA is headed by an Administrator
who is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States
Senate. 13 C.F.R. § 101.101(a). Importantly here, the SBA is vested with the authority to
administer the PPP. 13 C.F.R. § 120.1 et seq.; CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, §1102,
1006 134 Stat. 281 (2020).; see also Interim Final Rule, Business Loan Program
Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection Program, Docket No. SBA-2020-0015 at 1
(Apr. 2, 2020) (attached as Exhibit A).
11.
Defendant Jovita Carranza is the Administrator of the SBA. Ms. Carranza
exercises “direction, authority, and control over SBA.” Ms. Carranza both determines and
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 5 of 30
6
approves all of SBA’s programs to provide aid and assistance to small businesses in the
United States. 13 C.F.R. § 101.101(a)(1-2).
JURISDICTION
12.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this case
presents a federal question. Defendants’ action prohibiting businesses that primarily
engaged in political and lobbying activity from receiving loans that the SBA oversees,
violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
13.
This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 634(b)(1) which
vests jurisdiction in any United States District Court to adjudicate cases against the
Administrator of the SBA.
14.
Venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A)
because the SBA has its headquarters in the District of Columbia. See 13 C.F.R. § 101.102
(establishing SBA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
15.
As the night of an old decade turned to the dawn of a new decade, a novel
virus began to circumnavigate the globe.
16.
In the waning days of 2019, what is now known as the novel Coronavirus
disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) struck its first victims in the city of Wuhan, Hubei Province,
China.1
1 See Covid-19 Data Visualization Center, New Cases of COVID-19 in World Countries
(Apr. 11, 2020) available at https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 6 of 30
7
17.
Then, in early January 2020 this mysterious, insidious, and pernicious virus
surreptitiously slipped out of China and into Thailand and Japan, infecting more victims.2
18.
On January 15, 2020 the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared an
outbreak of this novel virus and warned countries in Asia to be prepared to combat this
virus. The WHO also identified this mysterious virus for the first time as COVID-19.3
19.
Approximately, one week later, this insidious disease landed on American
soil.4
20.
Three days after that, COVID-19 struck Europe.5
21.
On January 25, 2020, The WHO began sounding the alarm throughout the
Mediterranean region. Four days later, The United Arab Emirates reported its first
confirmed COVID-19 victims. Highlighting the insidious nature of this pernicious disease,
2 See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Screening to Begin
at 3 U.S. Airports for 2019 Novel Coronavirus (Jan. 17, 2020) available at
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0117-coronavirus-screening.html; see also
World Health Organization, WHO statement on novel coronavirus in Thailand (Jan. 13,
2020) available at https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/13-01-2020-who-statement-on-
novel-coronavirus-in-thailand.
3 See World Health Organization, Coronavirus outbreak shows Asia needs to step up
infection preparation (Jan. 15, 2020) available at
https://www.who.int/westernpacific/news/commentaries/detail-hq/coronavirus-outbreak-
shows-asia-needs-to-step-up-infection-preparation; see also World Health Organization,
Mission Summary: WHO Field Visit to Wuhan, China 20-21 January 2020 (Jan. 22,
2020) available at https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/22-01-2020-field-visit-wuhan-
china-jan-2020.
4 See supra n.1.
5 See World Health Organization, WHO’s Eastern Mediterranean Region Scales Up
Preparedness for Novel Coronavirus (Jan. 27, 2020) available at
http://www.emro.who.int/media/news/whos-eastern-mediterranean-region-scales-up-
preparedness-for-novel-coronavirus.html.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 7 of 30
8
the WHO identified that some victims of COVID-19 were asymptomatic, meaning the
virus was capable of spreading stealthily.6
22.
Approximately five days later Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom
reported their first COVID-19 victims.7
23.
On February 24, 2020, with 35 Americans testing positive for COVID-19,
President Trump requested that Congress appropriate $1.25 billion in funds to prepare for
a COVID-19 outbreak.8
24.
By the beginning of March 2020, COVID-19 had expanded its reach
throughout the world and infected 100,000 people.9
25.
On March 11, 2020, as the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide
surpassed 118,000, with victims in 114 countries, the WHO declared COVID-19 a global
pandemic.10
26.
Two days later, on March 13, 2020, after this insidious and pernicious virus
had struck 2,224 Americans, President Trump declared a national emergency.11
6 See World Health Organization, WHO confirms first cases of novel coronavirus (2019-
nCoV) in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (Jan. 29, 2020) available at
http://www.emro.who.int/media/news/who-confirms-first-cases-of-novel-coronavirus-
2019-ncov-in-the-eastern-mediterranean-region.html.
7 See supra n.1.
8 See Derrick Taylor, The Trump Administration Asks Congress for $1.25 Billion For
Coronavirus Response, N.Y. Times (Apr. 7, 2020) available at
https://www.nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html.
9 See World Health Organization, WHO Statement on Cases of COVID-19 Surpassing 100
000 (Mar. 7, 2020) available at https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-03-2020-who-
statement-on-cases-of-covid-19-surpassing-100-000.
10 See World Health Organization, WHO Director-General's Opening Remarks at the
Media Briefing on COVID-19 - 11 March 2020, available at
https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-
media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020.
11 See President Donald J. Trump, Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency
Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak (Mar. 13, 2020)
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 8 of 30
9
27.
Then, on March 17, 2020, President Trump declared that, for a period of 15
days, gatherings of 10 or more people would be discouraged.12
28.
The White House in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (“CDC”) published guidelines for how people should conduct themselves
during the following 15 days. Included within these guidelines was the recommendation
that, in areas where community spread of COVID-19 is present, “bars, restaurants, food
courts, gyms, and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate
should be closed.” (attached as Exhibit C). Additionally, individuals should avoid
discretionary travel, including shopping trips and social visits. Id.
29.
The CDC has recommended that people maintain a safe social distance of
at least six feet.13 This is because contact with a person within six feet can facilitate
transmission of COVID-19.
30.
State governments have issued orders requiring various businesses to close
or substantially curtail operations.
available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-
national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/. See also
Jordain Carney, Coronavirus pushes GOP's Biden-Burisma probe to back burner, The
Hill (Mar. 29, 2020) https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/489950-coronavirus-pushes-
gops-biden-burisma-probe-to-back-burner.
12 See The White House, The President’s Coronavirus Guidelines for America: 15 Days
to Slow the Spread, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/03.16.20_coronavirus-guidance_8.5x11_315PM.pdf (last visited
Mar. 19, 2020).
13 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Interim U.S. Guidance for Risk
Assessment and Public Health Management of Healthcare Personnel with Potential
Exposure in a Healthcare Setting to Patients with Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) (Mar.
7, 2020) available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/guidance-risk-
assesment-hcp.html.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 9 of 30
10
31.
For example, on March 12, 2020 Governor Northam of the Commonwealth
of Virginia declared a State of Emergency. In his “Declaration Of A State Of Emergency
Due To Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19),” Governor Northam declared that COVID-19 is
public health threat because it is a communicable disease.14 Four days later on Monday,
March 16, 2020, Governor Northam issued a directive stating that restaurants, fitness
centers, and theaters either had to reduce capacity to 10 people or close.15 On March 23,
2020, Governor Northam ordered all businesses to observe social-distancing practices and
to not allow more than 10 people in the business at any one time. If that business could not
adhere to those limitations, and it was not deemed an essential business, Governor Northam
ordered the business closed. Governor Northam also encouraged businesses that could do
so to telework as much as possible.16 Then, on March 30, Governor Northam issued a “stay
at home order” for all Virginians.17
14 See Governor Ralph Northam, Executive Order No. 51 (2020) DECLARATION OF A
STATE OF EMERGENCY DUE TO NOVEL CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) (Mar. 12,
2020) available at
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-
virginia/pdf/eo/EO-51-Declaration-of-a-State-of-Emergency-Due-to-Novel-Coronavirus-
(COVID-19).pdf.
15 See Governor Ralph Northam, Governor Northam Announces New Measures to Combat
COVID-19 and Support Impacted Virginians (Mar. 17, 2020) available at
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/newsroom/all-releases/2020/march/headline-854487-
en.html.
16 See Governor Ralph Northam, Executive Order No. 53, Temporary Restrictions on
Restaurants, Recreational, Entertainment, Gatherings, Non-Essential Retail Businesses,
and Closure of K-12 Schools Due to Novel Coronavirus (Covid-19) (Mar. 23, 2020)
available at https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-
actions/EO-53-Temporary-Restrictions-Due-To-Novel-Coronavirus-(COVID-19).pdf.
17 See Governor Ralph Northam, Executive Order No. 55, Temporary Stay at Home Order
Due
to
Novel
Coronavirus
(Covid-19)
(Mar.
30,
2020)
available
at
https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/executive-actions/EO-55-
Temporary-Stay-at-Home-Order-Due-to-Novel-Coronavirus-(COVID-19).pdf.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 10 of 30
11
32.
Also on March 16, Mayor Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia issued
an order prohibiting all gatherings of 50 or more people. Mayor Bowser also ordered all
restaurants, gyms, nightclubs, spas, and theatres to close.18 On March 24, 2020, Mayor
Bowser ordered all non-essential business to close.19
33.
Also on March 24, 2020, Governor J. Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma declared a
state of emergency for Oklahoma and ordered all non-critical businesses to close.20
34.
The following day, on March 25, Governor Jared Polis of Colorado ordered
all non-critical businesses to close.21 Governor Polis has ordered non-critical businesses to
remain closed until April 26, 2020.22
18 See Mayor Muriel Bowser, Prohibition on Mass Gatherings During Public Health
Emergency (Mar. 16, 2020) available at
https://mayor.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/publication/attachments/MO-
Prohibition-on-Mass-Gatherings-During-Public-Health-Emergency.pdf.
19 See Mayor Muriel Bowser, Closure of Non-Essential Businesses and Prohibition on
Large Gatherings During Public Health Emergency for the 2019 Novel Coronavirus
(COVID-19) (Mar. 24, 2020) available at
https://coronavirus.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mayormb/release_content/attachmen
ts/Mayor%27s%20Order%202020-053%20Closure%20of%20Non-
Essential%20Businesses%20and%20Prohibiti....pdf.
20 See Governor Kevin Stitt, Fourth Amended Executive Order 2020-07 (Mar. 24, 2020)
available at https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/executive/1919.pdf.
21 See Governor Jared Polis, Executive Order D 2020-17 Ordering Coloradans to Stay at
Home Due to the Presence of COVID-19 in the State (Mar. 25, 2020) available at
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/sites/default/files/inline-
files/D%202020%20017%20Ordering%20Coloradans%20to%20Stay%20at%20Home_0
.pdf.
22 See Governor Jared Polis, Executive Order D 2020-24 Amending and Extending
Executive Order D 2020 017 Ordering Coloradans to Stay at Home Due to the Presence
of COVID-19 (Apr. 6, 2020) available at
https://www.colorado.gov/governor/sites/default/files/inline-
files/D%202020%20024%20Amending%20and%20Extending%20Executive%20Order%
20D%202020%20017%20Stay%20at%20Home%20Order_0.pdf.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 11 of 30
12
35.
As of April 13, 2020, this insidious and pernicious virus has infected
557,663 Americans and killed 22,116 Americans.23
36.
But COVID-19 is not just ravaging the health of Americans, it is also
ravaging the Nation’s economy.
37.
On January 22, 2020, approximately the day that the first case of COVID-
19 was reported in the United States, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed at
29,186.27, and the unemployment rate was at 3.6 percent.24
38.
But by Friday April 3, 2020, 41 states and the District of Columbia had
issued stay-at-home orders, meaning 316 million Americans have been ordered to stay at
home and not go to work.25
39.
Accordingly, on Thursday, April 9, 2020, the Dow Jones Industrial Average
had dropped to 23,719.37.26 Furthermore, between March 19 and April 9, 2020, the number
of Americans filing for unemployment increased to approximately seventeen million.27
23 See supra n.1.
24 See Fred Imbert, Stocks Close Little Changed, IBM Leads Tech Shares Higher, CNBC
(Jan. 24, 2020) available at https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/us-futures-point-to-higher-
open.html; see also U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, Unemployment Rate 2.0 Percent
For College Grads, 3.8 Percent For High School Grads In January 2020 (Feb. 12, 2020)
available
at
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2020/unemployment-rate-2-percent-for-
college-grads-3-8-percent-for-high-school-grads-in-january-2020.htm.
25 See Sarah Mervosh, Which States and Cities Have Told Residents to Stay at Home,
N.Y. Times (Apr. 7, 2020) available at
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-stay-at-home-order.html.
26 See Dow Jones Industrial Average, Wall Street Journal, available at
https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/index/DJIA/historical-prices (last visited Apr.
11, 2020).
27 See Jim Zarroli, Jobs Carnage Mounts: 17 Million File For Unemployment In 3 Weeks,
National Public Radio (Apr. 9, 2020) available at
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/09/830216099/6-6-
million-more-file-for-unemployment-as-coronavirus-keeps-economy-shut.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 12 of 30
13
40.
On March 27, 2020, to provide a much-needed jolt to the American
economy, which had been ravaged by COVID-19, President Trump and Congress
collaborated to enact the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act,
Pub. L. No. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020). The purpose of the CARES Act was “to provide
immediate assistance to individuals, families, and businesses affected by the COVID-19
emergency.” Ex. at 4.
41.
Congress vested the SBA with authority “to modify existing loan programs
and establish a new loan program to assist small businesses nationwide adversely impacted
by the COVID-19 emergency.” Ex. A at 3.
42.
Included in the Act is the PPP. Congress established this program to provide
economic relief to small businesses nationwide adversely impacted under the COVID-19
Emergency Declaration issued by President Trump on March 13, 2020.”28
43.
The SBA stated that due to the various health emergencies declared across
the Nation, including the stay-at-home orders state governments had ordered, “small
businesses nationwide are experiencing economic hardship . . .” Ex. A at 2. The various
measures, including safe distance mandates, are decreasing economic activity for a host of
businesses. Ex. A at 3.
44.
The SBA received from Congress $349 billion to “guarantee loans under
the [PPP] through June 30, 2020.” Congress’s intent with this program “is that SBA
provide relief to America’s small businesses expeditiously.” Ex. A at 5. Small businesses
28 See Administrator Jovita Carranza, Business Loan Program Temporary Changes;
Paycheck Protection Program (Apr. 2, 2020).
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 13 of 30
14
are allowed to borrow up to $10 million unless the business, using a payroll-based formula,
arrives at a lower number. Ex. A at 8-9.
45.
The SBA guarantees 100 percent of the loans provided through the PPP.
Additionally, recipients can qualify for up to 100 percent loan forgiveness after applying
for the forgiveness and the SBA approves the request. Ex. A at 3.
46.
Loan recipients can use loans through the PPP to help pay the following
costs:
a.
Payroll costs;
b.
costs related to the continuation of group health care benefits during
periods of paid sick, medical, or family leave, and insurance
premiums;
c.
employee salaries, commissions, or similar compensations;
d.
payments of interest on any mortgage obligation (which shall not
include any prepayment of or payment of principal on a mortgage
obligation;
e.
rent (including rent under a lease agreement);
f.
utilities; and
g.
interest on any other debt obligations that were incurred before the
covered period.
CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, §1102(a)(2)(F)(i), 134 Stat. 281 (2020).
47.
Lenders can rely on certifications of borrowers to determine eligibility for
loans under this program. Ex. A at 5.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 14 of 30
15
48.
The CARES Act proclaims that, “in addition to small business concerns,
any business concern, nonprofit organization, veterans organization, or Tribal business
concern described in section 31(b)(2)(C) shall be eligible to receive a covered loan . . .”
CARES Act, Pub. L. No. 116-136, §1102(a)(1)(B)(2)(D)(i), 134 Stat. 281 (2020).
49.
To be eligible for this program, a business must:
a. have 500 employees or less; and
b. have a principal place of business is in the United States; or
c. operate a business within a certain industry that meets the SBA’s size
standards for that industry; and
d. have been in operation on February 15, 2020 and had employees or
independent contractors that the business was paying;
50.
Entities that are eligible for PPP include sole proprietorships, Non-profit
entities that are organized under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, tax-exempt
veterans entities organized under 501(c)(19) of the Internal Revenue Code, and Tribal
businesses organized under Section 31(b)(2)(C) of the Small Business Act. Ex. A at 5-6.
51.
A small business is not eligible if it conducts illegal business under federal,
state, or local law, employs nannies and/or housekeepers, an owner of 20 percent or more
equity is incarcerated, on probation or parole, is subject to indictment, or was convicted of
a felony within the last five years, or the business has obtained a federally guaranteed loan
that is not currently delinquent or within the past seven years, the business has defaulted
on the loan. Ex. A at 7.
52.
Importantly for Plaintiffs, a small business is also not eligible for the PPP if
it is identified in 13 C.F.R. § 120.110. Ex. A at 8.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 15 of 30
16
53.
Businesses that are identified in that section include, but are not limited to:
a. Non-profit businesses;
b. Private clubs and businesses which limit the number of memberships
for reasons other than capacity;
c. Businesses principally engaged in teaching, instructing, counseling
or indoctrinating religion or religious beliefs, whether in a religious
or secular setting;
d. Businesses that present live performances of a prurient sexual nature
or derive “directly or indirectly more than de minimis gross revenue
through the sale” of items of a prurient sexual nature; and
e. Businesses primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities.
13 C.F.R. § 120.110 (emphasis added).
54.
However, Congress, through the CARES Act, superseded the SBA’s
prohibition on certain non-profits receiving loans. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(a). Under the
CARES Act, 501(c)(3)’s, veterans’ groups, and Tribal businesses are eligible to receive
loans. Ex. A at 6.
55.
Additionally, on Friday April 3, 2020, the SBA issued additional guidance
concerning its prohibition on allowing loans to churches. (attached as Exhibit B).
Exercising its authority “to modify existing loan programs and establish a new loan
program,” the SBA exempted church organizations from the SBA’s affiliation rules that
would otherwise make some churches too large to qualify for PPP or otherwise be
prohibited from receiving loans. Ex. B at 6-7, 9. This exemption was necessitated under
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Id. at 6.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 16 of 30
17
56.
Furthermore, the Administrator determined that the SBA did not have a
compelling interest “in denying emergency assistance to faith-based organizations that are
facing the same economic hardship to which the CARES Act responded and who would
be eligible for PPP but for their faith-based organizational and associational decisions.”
Ex. B at 8.
57.
Accordingly, the Administrator has decided to exempt from application of
SBA’s affiliation rules faith-based organizations that would otherwise be disqualified from
participation in PPP because of affiliations that are a part of their religious exercise. Ex. B
at 10.
58.
But Plaintiff AAPC’s members and Plaintiff Ridder/Braden, Inc. here are
still prohibited from receiving funds through the PPP due to the SBA’s regulatory
prohibition on giving loans to entities whose “Businesses [are] primarily engaged in
political or lobbying activities.” 13 C.F.R. 120.110(r).
59.
Plaintiff AAPC has members who have applied for PPP loans, but have been
denied those loans due to the SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition. See, e.g., Karabell Aff.
at ¶¶ 11-13. Those Plaintiffs who have not applied for PPP loans, fully intend to apply but
for the SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition codified at 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(r).
60.
If Plaintiffs are unable to participate in PPP and the CARE Act’s other
loans, Plaintiffs will be forced to abstain or substantially limit the exercise their
constitutional right to freedom of speech, particularly speech in the height of political
campaigns, and their right to petition government. Not only is this an injury to Plaintiffs,
but it is an injury to society as a whole, because speakers will be forced out of the
marketplace of ideas. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 119 (2003).
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 17 of 30
18
61.
That Plaintiffs are still permitted to personally lobby, or speak in political
campaigns, outside of their businesses does not address the harm that they suffer here. The
SBA’s speech activities ban, especially now during an economic crisis unprecedented since
the Great Depression, deprives Plaintiffs of the most effective way to petition government
and promote candidates for office, namely through speech on behalf of their clients. See
Autor v. Pritzker, 740 F.3d 176, 183 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
STATEMENT OF APPLICABLE LAW
62.
“Premised on a mistrust of governmental power,” the First Amendment
declares, under no uncertain terms, that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the
freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I; Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 340
(2010). The First Amendment prohibits any law that “stands against attempts to disfavor
certain subjects or viewpoints.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340.
63.
Speech about public issues “[i]s at the heart of the First Amendment's
protection,” and therefore, speech concerning salient issues is constitutionally enshrined
because it is “the type of speech [that is] indispensable to decision making in a democracy.”
First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776-77 (1978). See also Eu v. San Francisco
Cty. Democratic Central Comm., 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989) (“The First Amendment has its
fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political
office.”) (internal quotation omitted); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964)
(“[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-
government.”); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966) (“Whatever differences may
exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 18 of 30
19
that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental
affairs.”).
64.
Statutes that regulate activity based on the content of the speaker’s speech
are presumptively unconstitutional. Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015).
A regulation is content-based if it requires “enforcement authorities to examine the content
of the message that is conveyed to determine whether a violation has occurred.” McCullen
v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 479 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
65.
When a statute imposes a regulation that is based on the content of the
speaker’s speech, it is of no constitutional significance whether the statute is a complete
prohibition or a limitation. The statute is still presumptively unconstitutional and subject
to strict scrutiny. Pursuing America's Greatness v. FEC, 831 F.3d 500, 510 (D.C. Cir.
2016) (citing and quoting United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., 529 U.S. 803, 812 (2000).
66.
Furthermore, the government cannot grant benefits on the condition that
you abandon your right to free speech and association. See, e.g., Perry v. Sindermann, 408
U.S. 593, 597 (1972) (“For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of
his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would
in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to "produce a result
which [it] could not command directly.”).
67.
Stated more succinctly, “[t]he Government may not deny a benefit to a
person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech even
if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” Agency for Int'l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc'y
Int'l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in the
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 19 of 30
20
original). “The First Amendment supplies a limit on Congress’ ability to place conditions
on the receipt of funds.” Id.
68.
For example, the First Amendment prohibits the provision of federal aid to
a noncommercial radio station on the condition the radio station never editorialize. FCC v.
League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 399-401 (1984).
69.
The First Amendment also declares, in no uncertain terms that “Congress
shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I.
70.
Lobbying and political activities are constitutionally protected activities
under the First Amendment’s right to petition government. This constitutionally protected
right to lobby endures even when the lobbyist receives compensation. Autor, 740 F.3d at
182; Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 339-40 (stating that political speech, especially in the
height of political campaigns, is essential to decision-making in our constitutional
republic).
71.
In the analogous context of granting tax exempt status to entities, “the
discriminatory denial of tax exemptions can impermissibly infringe free speech.” Big
Mama Rag v. United States, 631 F.2d 1030, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (citing Speiser v.
Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 518 (1958).
CLAIM I
Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
72.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-71 as if fully restated
herein.
73.
Statutes that regulate activity based upon the content of the speaker’s speech
are presumptively unconstitutional. Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2226. A regulation is content-based
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 20 of 30
21
if it requires “enforcement authorities to examine the content of the message that is
conveyed to determine whether a violation has occurred.” McCullen, 573 U.S. at 479
(internal quotation marks omitted).
74.
When a statute imposes a regulation that is based on the content of the
speaker’s speech, it is of no constitutional significance whether the statute is a complete
prohibition or a limitation. The statute is still presumptively unconstitutional and subject
to strict scrutiny. Pursuing America's Greatness, 831 F.3d at 510.
75.
Accordingly, statutes that act as a prohibition on non-candidate committees
from using the name of a candidate in their official committee name is an unconstitutional
content-based speech prohibition. Pursuing America’s Greatness, 831 F.3d at 510-11;
Pursuing America's Greatness v. FEC, 363 F. Supp. 3d 94 (D.D.C. 2019).
76.
Similarly, statutes that prohibit robocalls that are “of a political nature
including, but not limited to, calls relating to political campaigns” are an unconstitutional
content-based speech prohibition. Cahaly v. LaRosa, 796 F.3d 399, 402-06 (4th Cir. 2015).
77.
This is not the first time the SBA has enacted a content-based speech
prohibition that a federal court has declared unconstitutional.
78.
In 1983, plaintiffs brought a First Amendment challenge to an SBA
regulation known as the “opinion molder rule.” Mission Trace Invs., Ltd. v. SBA, 622 F.
Supp. 687, 688 (D. Colo. 1985) rev. on other grounds sub. nom. Ascot Dinner Theatre,
Ltd. v. Small Business Admin., 887 F.2d 1024 (10th Cir. 1989). Similar to the SBA’s current
political and lobbying activity prohibition, the “opinion molder rule” stated the following:
Financial assistance will not be granted by SBA . . . if the applicant is
engaged in the creation, origination, expression, dissemination,
propagation, or distribution of ideas, values, thoughts, opinions or similar
intellectual property, regardless of medium, form or content. Financial
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 21 of 30
22
assistance to such applicants is barred in order to avoid Government
interference, or the appearance thereof, with the constitutionally protected
freedoms of speech and press.
Mission Trace Invs., Ltd., 622 F. Supp. at 689 (quoting 13 C.F.R. § 120.2(d)(4)(1985).
79.
After concluding that the “opinion molder rule” “completely deprives
otherwise qualified applicants of all their potential SBA benefits solely because they
engage in constitutionally protected activity[]” id. at 696, the court turned then to analyze
whether the “opinion molder rule” was an unconstitutional content-based speech
prohibition.” Id.
80.
The court concluded that the “opinion molder rule” constituted a content-
based speech ban. Id. at 697 (“[T]he opinion molder rule discriminates against expression
because of the content of that expression.”). The “opinion molder rule” constituted a
content-based speech ban even though it banned an entire topic of speech without taking a
position within that topic. Id. Furthermore, to enforce the “opinion molder rule,” the rule
“requires the SBA to examine the content of a loan applicant's speech.” Id.
81.
Noting that the SBA’s “opinion molder rule” permits commercial
advertising, the court ruled that the First Amendment does not permit favoritism between
commercial speech and speech that promotes ideas. Id. at 699. The court concluded that
“the opinion molder rule inhibits important media of public expression because of the
content or viewpoints of the messages expressed.”
82.
After balancing the interests under constitutional scrutiny, the court held
that the “opinion molder rule” violated the First Amendment. Id. at 702. The court
concluded that “[a]n agency established to promote economic well-being by assisting
viable small businesses may not deny benefits to applicants solely because they engage in
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 22 of 30
23
constitutionally protected expression.” Id. The SBA did not challenge this holding on
appeal and the Tenth Circuit did not review it. Ascot Dinner Theatre, 887 F.2d at 1026.
83.
Now, making a similar mistake, the SBA has declared that its loans are not
eligible for “[b]usinesses [that are] primarily engaged in political or lobbying activities.”
13 C.F.R. § 120.110(r).
84.
The SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition constitutes a content-based speech
ban because, to enforce it, the SBA must look to the content of Plaintiffs’ speech, here
lobbying and political activities. McCullen, 573 U.S. at 479.
85.
The SBA does not have a compelling interest to prohibit Plaintiffs’
otherwise eligible small businesses from obtaining loans under the PPP.
86.
Furthermore, the SBA’s means—a complete prohibition—are not narrowly
tailored. Less intrusive means other than a complete ban do exist. Pursuing America’s
Greatness, 831 F.3d at 510; League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. at 400-01 (stating
that if the federal government granted federal dollars to non-commercial radio stations on
the condition that the federal funds not be used for electioneering, but the radio station
could use private funds for electioneering, such a grant system would be constitutional).
87.
Accordingly, the SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition is an unconstitutional
content-based speech prohibition.
CLAIM II
Violation of Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution
88.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-87 as if fully restated
herein.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 23 of 30
24
89.
The First Amendment declares, under no uncertain terms that “Congress
shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I.
90.
Lobbying and political speech are constitutionally protected activities under
the First Amendment’s right to petition government. This constitutionally protected right
to lobby endures even when the lobbyist receives compensation. Autor, 740 F.3d at 182.
91.
Although the government has the authority to appropriate funds, Art. I, §8,
cl. 1., the “First Amendment supplies a limit on Congress’ ability to place conditions on
the receipt of funds.” Agency for Int'l Dev., 570 U.S. at 214.
92.
Accordingly, the government cannot grant benefits on the condition that a
speaker abandon his or her right to free speech and association. See, e.g., Perry, 408 U.S.
at 597.
93.
Stated more succinctly, “[t]he Government may not deny a benefit to a
person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech even
if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” Agency for Int'l Dev., 570 U.S. at 214 (internal
quotation marks omitted, alteration in the original).
94.
For example, the First Amendment prohibits the conditioning of a
noncommercial radio station receiving any federal aid that the radio station must never
editorialize. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. at 399-401.
95.
Here, as a condition of receiving a loan through the PPP, administrated by
the SBA, Plaintiffs must not be “Businesses [that are] primarily engaged in political or
lobbying activities.” 13 C.F.R. § 120.110(r).
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 24 of 30
25
96.
But Plaintiffs are exercising their First Amendment rights by lobbying on
behalf of clients and consulting on political speech made in the height of campaigns. But
for exercising their constitutional rights, Plaintiffs are otherwise eligible to receive loans
through the PPP.
97.
The SBA does not provide Plaintiffs with any alternative means to obtain
resources in light of government imposed economic shutdowns. Plaintiffs cannot
restructure their corporate affairs in such a manner as to obtain these necessary funds
because, in the final analysis, Plaintiffs’ businesses are still primarily engaged in political
and lobbying activity. Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 544 (1983)
(holding that lobbying prohibition for entities organized under 501(c)(3) of the Tax Code
is not an unconstitutional condition because the plaintiff could establish a dual corporate
structure where plaintiff could receive tax-deductible contributions for its non-lobbying
work activities and a separate entity for its lobbying activity).
98.
The SBA cannot condition the grant of its loans through the PPP on the
basis of Plaintiffs abandoning their constitutional right engaged in speech and petition
related activities.
CLAIM III
Violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
99.
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-98 as if fully restated
herein.
100.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment declares that no person
shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. V. Included within the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause are the same equal
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 25 of 30
26
protection principles contained in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
See Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636, 638 n.2 (1975).
101.
“The injury in fact in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of
equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to
obtain the benefit.” Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 262 (2003).
102.
SBA’s PPP is available to all businesses, including 501(c)(3) nonprofits,
veterans organizations, and faith based groups. But, the SBA prevents businesses that
engage primarily in political or lobbying activity from obtaining these loans. 13 C.F.R. §
120.110(r).
103.
Here, the SBA’s Political Speech Prohibition treats differently those who
are exercising their constitutional right to speak and petition government from those who
are not. In fact, those who are exercising their constitutional right to speak and petition
government are completely prohibited from obtaining these PPP loans. Other small
businesses are not. This is an unconstitutional distinction prohibiting those who exercise
fundamental constitutional rights from obtaining much needed loans while allowing those
who do not exercise fundamental constitutional rights to obtain them. This violates the
equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Autor v. Blank,
892 F. Supp. 2d 264, 273 (D.D.C. 2012) rev.’d 740 F.3d 176, 184 (2014) (“Because
[Plaintiffs] have plausibly alleged that the ban denies them a benefit available to others on
account of their exercise of a fundamental right, we must reverse the district court's
dismissal of their equal protection claim as well.”).
104.
Like other small businesses that are coping with the economic impact of
COVID-19, Plaintiffs are in dire need of an infusion of funds. They are otherwise eligible
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 26 of 30
27
for loans through the PPP. The SBA prohibits Plaintiffs from obtaining this necessary cash
infusion because Plaintiffs exercise their fundamental constitutional rights. This violates
the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment.
105.
“The Equal Protection Clause requires that statutes affecting First
Amendment interests be narrowly tailored to their legitimate objectives.” Police Dep't of
Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 101 (1972).
106.
A complete prohibition of political consultants and lobbyists from being
able to obtain loans is not narrowly tailored. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. at
399-401. The government does not have a legitimate interest during this global pandemic
in preventing small businesses from obtaining much needed cash to cover payroll and
health insurance for their employees just because these small businesses exercise
fundamental constitutional rights.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
A.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, declare unconstitutional the
Paycheck Protection Program’s Political Speech Prohibition contained in 13 C.F.R. §
120.110(r), as applied to Plaintiffs because the Political Speech Prohibition violates the
First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
B.
Enjoin all Defendants, their agents, and assigns from enforcing the
Paycheck Protection Program’s Political Speech Prohibition contained in 13 C.F.R. §
120.110(r) against all Plaintiffs.
C.
Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Equal Access to
Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d).
D.
Award all other relief that this Court deems just and necessary.
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 27 of 30
28
Respectfully submitted, April 15, 2020
/s/ Jason Torchinsky_____________
Jason Torchinsky (D.C. Bar No. 976033)
jtorchinsky@hvjt.law
Jonathan Lienhard (D.C. Bar No. 501845)
jlienhard@hvjt.law
Shawn Sheehy (Va Bar No. 82630)*
ssheehy@hvjt.law
HOLTZMAN VOGEL JOSEFIAK TORCHINSKY PLLC
45 North Hill Drive, Suite 100
Warrenton, VA 20186
Phone: (540) 341-8808
Fax: (540) 341-8809
Counsel for Plaintiffs
*Pro Hac Vice Application Forthcoming
** Application for Admission to this Court Forthcoming
Joseph E. Sandler (D.C. Bar No. 255919)
sandler@sandlerreiff.com
Sandler, Reiff, Lamb, Rosenstein & Birkenstock PC
1090 Vermont Ave., N.W. Suite 750
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 202 479 -1111
Fax: 202-479-1115
Counsel for Plaintiffs
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 28 of 30
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 29 of 30
30
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jason Torchinsky, hereby certify that on April 15, 2020, the foregoing has been
filed via the CM/ECF system and by email to Emergency_Judge@dcd.uscourts.gov. By
agreement of the parties, this filing was also sent via electronic mail and First Class
Certified Mail to the Counsel for the Defendants listed below:
/s/ Jason Torchinsky
Jason Torchinsky
Chris Pilkerton
Eric Benderson
Office of General Counsel
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd St, S.W.
Washington DC 20416
eric.benderson@sba.gov
David Morrell
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Federal Programs Branch
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, DC 20530
David.M.Morrell@usdoj.gov
James J. Gilligan
Special Litigation Counsel
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 883
Washington, D.C. 20044
Tel: 202-514-3358
James.Gilligan@usdoj.gov
Timothy J. Shea
United States Attorney
District of Columbia
555 4th St NW,
Washington, DC 20530
202-252-7566
Case 1:20-cv-00970-RCL Document 8 Filed 04/15/20 Page 30 of 30File and source
- File
- aapc_sba__docket-17065701__doc-8__id-130626301__Amended_Complaint.pdf
- Size
- 393,246 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6cf546eb6069f3fd01ead4702a261f9c501097abe069a2c9be942905a482c5ea
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com