Risenhoover v. Washington (Feb 12 2008, US Dist Minnesota, no 8th Circuit appeal) is a case that challenged passport denial to an individual for child support arrears under 42 USC 652(k), a statute enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996.
Paul Risenhoover and Ying Lang divorced in 1995 when they were living in Oklahoma. Eventually, Ling received custody of their child and Risenhoover was order to pay child support. In 2005, Liang relocated to Washington County, Minnesota. There she sought enforcement of the Oklahoma child support order from the Washington County Community Services (WCCS) as Risenhoover had fallen behind in his payments by more than $5,000.
Risenhoover's passport was revoked on December 15, 2005 when he was issued with a new one expiring on January 14, 2006 and valid only for return to the US. On the same date, he was apparently deported from Taiwan, blacklisted and denied reentry for six months. On February 22, 2006, the State Department issued a full-validity passport to Risenhoover based on notification from the US Department of Health and Human Services that he had paid the outstanding child support. In March 2007, WCCS of Minnesota certified to DHHS that Risenhoover had again fallen behind his child support payments. In April 24, 2007, DHHS passed the WCCS certification to the State Department. [1]
On September 15, 2007 the US State Department American Institute in Taiwan's (AIT) Consular Section in Taipei refused to add additional pages to the passport of petitioner Paul Maas Risenhoover. Subsequently, on November 11, 2007, Risenhoover filed four pro se actions in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming, inter alia, habeas corpus due to illegal detention and being forced to return to the US due to the refusal of the State Department to add pages to his passport which resulted in his expulsion and banishment from Taiwan.
The Court described Risenhoover's complaint as "a scrambled collection of conspiracy allegations and unexplained citations to federal statutes." Risenhoover maintained that he was subject to certain cognitive disorders and should not be discriminated against on this basis, arguing that he was effectively in custody wherever he went, because he was unable to travel internationally without a passport.
Due to the unstructured nature of Risenhoover's pleadings it is difficult to ascertain what ultimately happened but it is clear from court exhibits that he flew from Kaohsiung to Tokyo on February 26, 2006. He further complained of ill-treatment by the authorities at or about that time.
Risenhoover was originally subject to an Oklahoma child support order but responsibility for its enforcement was apparently transferred to Minnesota. He argued that he was entitled to an administrative hearing prior to the seizure of his passport and that Oklahoma or Minnesota were effectively attempting an extrajudicial extradition. He further argued that at face value, the passport denial scheme of 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) violated the Constitution's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses. Finally he claimed that 42 U.S.C. § 652(k) amounted to an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Risenhoover's habeas action, ruling that he was not in custody as defined by federal habeas statutes. The court further denied his procedural due process challenge, citing the 2nd and the 9th Circuits in Weinstein v Albright and Eunique v Powell. It went on to reject his substantive due process right to travel challenge, again citing Eunique (citing Weinstein). It rejected his Bill of Attainder argument because the legislation did not single him out and was non-punitive coupled with there being no facts showing that Congress intended to punish parents who owe child support arrears by denying their passport applications (citing Weinstein).
The court also denied his due process claim against the WCCS, indicating that since the requirements of 42 USC 652(k) (a reference to the "notice and opportunity"" requirement of 42 USC 654) had been met. Risenhoover's claim that WCCS willfully sent pre-certification notice to him at an address in Pan Chaio, Taiwan, where he no longer resided and that WCCS’s March 2007 certification to the DHHS that he owed past due child support, violated his rights to due process because there was “no notice, no hearing, and no evidence” was adjudged as without merit. Here the Court reasoned that "the availability of a post-certification administrative complaint procedure provided Petitioner with adequate procedural due process."