## Facts

- John Doe was arrested as a juvenile in federal court for failing to pay a federal special tax on marijuana that had been exported, under a statute later repealed.
- Doe pleaded guilty and received a sentence of three years’ probation.
- Before the probation period ended, the sentencing court vacated Doe’s conviction and sealed his record.
- Doe stated that the judge who sealed the record told him he would not need to disclose the juvenile record to anyone after seven years, leading him to believe it would not affect future employment.
- For roughly 27 years after the juvenile case, Doe was not arrested or convicted again.
- Doe worked in the auto-sales industry for about 20 years and became a sales manager.
- A routine background check later revealed the sealed juvenile conviction.
- Doe alleged federal law barred employment by a federally insured institution for a person convicted of an offense involving dishonesty, and his employer also had a policy of terminating employees with criminal convictions.
- Doe’s supervisor told him that unless he had his record expunged, he would be fired.
- Doe filed a civil action against the United States seeking equitable expungement of his federal criminal arrest record (and related record information maintained and disclosed by federal authorities).
- The United States moved to dismiss, or alternatively for summary judgment, arguing expungement should be limited to extreme cases and that Doe had not shown extraordinary circumstances; it also asserted a general interest in keeping criminal records.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal district court has equitable (ancillary) jurisdiction to consider expungement of federal criminal records when no statute expressly authorizes expungement and the underlying proceedings are not alleged to be unlawful.
2. Whether Doe’s alleged collateral employment consequences, combined with the vacatur and sealing of a decades-old juvenile conviction, could amount to “extraordinary circumstances” sufficient to defeat dismissal or summary judgment.
3. Whether the government’s generalized interest in maintaining criminal records entitled it to dismissal or summary judgment without a fact-based balancing of the parties’ interests.

## Decision

- The court denied the United States’ motion to dismiss.
- The court denied the United States’ alternative motion for summary judgment.
- The court ordered the United States to show cause why expungement should not be granted and set the matter for a further hearing.

## Legal Principles

- Federal district courts may, in limited circumstances, exercise equitable (ancillary) jurisdiction to consider expungement of federal criminal record information even absent an express statutory expungement remedy.
- Expungement is an exceptional form of relief and typically requires a showing of unusual circumstances, evaluated through a case-by-case balancing of the individual’s harms against the government’s reasons for retention and dissemination.
- On a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, the government is not automatically entitled to judgment based only on broad statements that accurate criminal records are useful; where the plaintiff pleads substantial, concrete harm, the court may require a more specific justification tied to the particular record.
- Factors supporting further equitable review may include: the juvenile nature of the offense, the passage of many years without further criminal conduct, the prior vacatur and sealing of the conviction, repeal of the underlying statute, and imminent job loss based on legal and employer-imposed disqualifications.

## Conclusion

The district court held that it could consider equitable expungement of Doe’s federal record and that, given the vacatur and sealing of a decades-old juvenile conviction, long-term law-abiding conduct, and alleged imminent termination due to federal restrictions and employer policy, the government was not entitled to dismissal or summary judgment; instead, the court required the United States to show cause at a hearing why expungement should not issue.


Doe v. United States, 964 F. Supp. 1429 (1997)