Cowden v. Treasury, No. 4:24-CV-602-ZMB (Oct. 20, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Megan Cowden v. US Treasury & IRS
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Oct. 20, 2025
Disposition
Motion Granted
Majority
Zachary M. Bluestone (J.) (unanimous Court)
MEGAN COWDEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2958766Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court,E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.MEGAN COWDEN, Plaintiff,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENTOF THE TREASURY and INTERNALREVEUE SERVICE, Defendants.Case No. 4:24-CV-602-ZMB|10/20/2025ZACHARY M. BLUESTONE, UNITED STATESDISTRICT JUDGEMEMORANDUM AND ORDER*1 Before the Court is Defendant United States ofAmerica's1 Motion to Dismiss. Doc. 15. Plaintiff MeganCowden brought this action to challenge a federal tax lien,seeking both “declaratory and injunctive relief” due to apurported violation of the Administrative Procedures Act(APA). Doc. 1 ¶¶ 7, 10–14. Given that the Anti-InjunctionAct (AIA) and Declaratory Judgement Act (DJA) bar judicialreview of such tax matters, the Court grants the Motion toDismiss with prejudice.BACKGROUNDCowden filed this action on April 26, 2024. Doc. 1. Invokingthe APA, her Complaint seeks judicial review and vacatur ofthe IRS's denial of her application for withdrawal of a federaltax lien. Id. at 4–5. After months of failed attempts, Cowdenserved the United States, which timely moved for dismissalon multiple grounds. Doc. 15. In particular, the UnitedStates argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdictionpursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) andthat the Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Doc. 16. Cowden opposed dismissal, claiming that she“seeks review of an administrative determination, not to blockassessment or collection [of taxes].” Doc. 17 at 3. She laterfiled a supplemental memorandum, alleging a constitutionalviolation that requires certification to the Attorney General.2Doc. 19.LEGAL STANDARDFederal courts are, by design, courts of limited jurisdiction.Crain v. Crain, 72 F.4th 269, 276 (8th Cir. 2023). “Withinconstitutional bounds, Congress decides what cases thefederal courts have jurisdiction to consider.” Bowles v.Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 212 (2007). “The plaintiff bears theburden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.” Hilger v.United States, 87 F.4th 897, 899 (8th Cir. 2023).*2 Cowden has filed a claim under the APA, which providesfor judicial review of final agency actions, except whereanother statute expressly or impliedly forbids relief. 5 U.S.C.§ 702. Relevant here, both the AIA and the DJA bar suitsaiming to restrain the collection of taxes. See 26 U.S.C.§ 7421(a) (“[N]o suit for the purpose of restraining theassessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained inany court by any person, whether or not such person is theperson against whom such tax was assessed.”), 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) (allowing for declaratory judgment actions “exceptwith respect to Federal taxes”). The Supreme Court hasexplained that “[t]he manifest purpose of [the AIA] is topermit the United States to assess and collect taxes alleged tobe due without judicial intervention, and to require that thelegal right to the disputed sums be determined in a suit forrefund.” Enochs v. Williams Packing & Nav. Co., 370 U.S. 1,7 (1962). Similarly, this Court has recognized that the DJAgenerally bars jurisdiction where an action “pertains to taxes.”Hinds v. Trump, No. 4:25-CV-47-AGF, 2025 WL 1651819,at *4 (E.D. Mo. June 11, 2025); see also Bob Jones Univ.v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 732 n.7 (1974) (indicating that theDJA's limitation on suits involving federal taxes is “at leastas broad as” the AIA's federal-tax exception).DISCUSSIONAs a threshold matter, the plain text of the AIA and DJA andrelevant precedent forbid the Court from reviewing Cowden'sdisputed federal tax lien. Both statutes were designed toprevent courts from impeding the United States in collectingtaxes, which is precisely what Cowden attempts to dohere. Moreover, the availability of other remedies separatelyprecludes review under the APA.
MEGAN COWDEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2In opposing dismissal, Cowden primarily argues that she isnot attempting to impede the collection of taxes but, instead,merely seeks “review of an administrative determination.”Doc. 17 at 3. While a tax lien is a tool for collection, and not acollection action itself, Cowden admits that her ultimate goalis “to delay and suspend the collection threats, activities, andrecord inaccuracy based adverse decisions being made.” Doc.1-4 6. In other words, she is attempting to have the Courtdo precisely what is forbidden by the AIA and DJA—namely,to “enjoin or otherwise obstruct the collection of taxes.” Nat'lFed. of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 543 (2012).Cowden also cites a hodgepodge of cases3 to suggest thatthe AIA and DJA do not bar a claim challenging the “processand legality of an administrative action.” Doc. 17 at 4.However, these cases are easily distinguishable. In Robertsv. Commissioner, the court did not even mention the AIA,and in any case, it was reviewing a final decision of theTax Court, which is not true here. 329 F.3d 1224, 1225–27(11th Cir. 2003). Similarly, Bowen v. Massachusetts does notaddress the application of the AIA. 487 U.S. 879 (1988).And Cohen v. United States concerned the adequacy of theprocess for collecting a refund, 650 F.3d 717, 725–26 (D.C.Cir. 2011), unlike here, where Cowden seeks a declarationthat a tax lien was wrongly issued. Doc. 1 7 (“Plaintiff is[ ] alleging that the lien was improperly applied to her as sheis not a ‘taxpayer’ responsible for the debts in question....”).Indeed, the Supreme Court has instructed that the “legal rightto the disputed sums,” like the tax lien in this case, must “bedetermined in a suit for refund.” See Enochs, 370 U.S. at 7.*3 While not addressed directly in Cowden's memoranda, itbears noting that she could have overcome at least the AIA'sbar had she established either of two possible exceptions.See id. But it is apparent from the briefing that neitherexception applies here. First, it is far from “clear” that thereare “no circumstances” under which “the Government [could]ultimately prevail.” Id. (stating “that the question of whetherthe Government has a chance of ultimately prevailing is tobe determined...at the time of the suit...under the most liberalview of the law and the facts”). Second, Cowden has notshown that there is no alternative legal avenue to contest thelegality of the federal tax lien.4 Despite Cowden's assertionthat the “April 2014 IRS letter denying [her] request wasclearly final,” Doc. 17 at 6, there are at least two otherremedies available: a civil damages claim against the IRS forfailure to release a lien when required, 26 U.S.C. § 7432(a),or payment of the lien and a subsequent claim for a refundunder IRS procedures, 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). As Cowdenhas alternate legal avenues to contest the lien, the secondexception does not apply, and the Court has no grounds toreview the lien under the AIA.In sum, both the AIA and DJA bar this Court from reviewingCowden's challenge to the collection of federal taxes bycontesting the IRS's lien against her. As a result, the Courtneed not reach the United States's alternative grounds fordismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).CONCLUSIONAccordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ [15] Motion toDismiss with prejudice. The Court will issue a separate Orderof Dismissal to accompany this order.So ordered this 20th day of October 2025.ZACHARY M. BLUESTONEUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGEAll CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2958766Footnotes1Neither the Department of the Treasury nor the IRS—the only named defendants—are suable entities, whichis an independent basis for dismissal. See, e.g., Williams v. IRS, No. 4:22-CV-556-SEP, 2022 WL 3153734,at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 8, 2022) (collecting cases); Napoli v. Dep't of the Treasury, No. 4:19-CV-2383 RWS,
MEGAN COWDEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.32019 WL 6716373, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 10, 2019) (same). However, for purposes of this order, the Court willconstrue this action as if it were correctly filed against the United States.2Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1 provides that “a “party that files a pleading...drawing into question theconstitutionality of a federal...statute must promptly [ ] file a notice of constitutional question stating thequestion and identifying the paper that raises it” but only if “the parties do not include the United States orone of its agencies.” In other words, courts need not follow the corresponding certification requirement “whenthe United States, or any agency, officer, or employee thereof, is a party in the suit or proceeding.” UnitedStates v. Roberts, No. 4:16-cv-04012, 2016 WL 6246357, at *3 (W.D. Ark. Oct. 25, 2016). Accordingly, theCourt rejects Cowden's assertion that it is required to certify her constitutional question and hold a hearingon the matter. See Doc. 19 at 6.3The Court notes that it was unable to locate one of the Cowden's case citations, as well as several quotationsattributed to other cases she cites. The Court suspects, but cannot confirm, that portions or even the entiretyof Cowden's filings were generated by artificial intelligence. If so, Cowden “wasted not only Defendant's time,but also judicial resources,” and violated her obligations under Rule 11 by failing to confirm the accuracy ofthose citations. See Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 169 (2025) (collecting cases where courtshave sanctioned pro se litigants for failing to meet the requirements of Rule 11).4Significantly, the availability of alternative remedies serves as an independent basis for dismissal becausethe APA allows for review of “final agency actions” only where “there is no other adequate remedy in a court.”5 U.S.C. § 704; see also Doc. 16 at 7–8.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access