pull down to refresh

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit GRANTS stay of injunction in CTA casewww.courtlistener.com/docket/69450356/140/2/texas-top-cop-shop-v-garland/
449 sats \ 4 comments \ @Arceris 23 Dec Politics_And_Law
Needless to say, I think they got it wrong. However given the court's reasoning on the likelihood of success, this could be seen as a preview of their leaning.
Quick ChatGPT summary of the order:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order granting a temporary stay of a nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and its Reporting Rule, which had been imposed by a district court. The CTA requires nonexempt companies to disclose their beneficial ownership information, aiming to combat financial crimes. The district court had found the CTA unconstitutional, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed, emphasizing:
  • Likelihood of Success: The government made a strong case that the CTA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause because it regulates economic activities affecting interstate commerce. The Act’s reporting requirements align with efforts to combat financial crimes and are narrowly applied to entities engaged in commercial activities.
  • Irreparable Harm to Government: Blocking the implementation of a statute duly enacted by Congress constitutes irreparable harm to the government.
  • Minimal Harm to Businesses: The burden on businesses is relatively minor, with reporting estimated to take 90 minutes and no associated filing fees.
  • Public Interest: The stay supports the public interest by reinforcing anti-money laundering measures and bolstering national security.
The order expedites the appeal for oral arguments, highlighting the urgency of resolving this matter before the CTA’s reporting deadline on January 1, 2025. The court also criticized the district court’s broad injunction, which exceeded the scope of relief sought by the plaintiffs​.
write
preview
related posts
115 sats \ 0 replies \ @Arceris OP 17h
FinCEN gave the hoi polloi a few extra days extension (to January 13th):
In light of a December 23, 2024, federal Court of Appeals decision, reporting companies, except as indicated below, are once again required to file beneficial ownership information with FinCEN. However, because the Department of the Treasury recognizes that reporting companies may need additional time to comply given the period when the preliminary injunction had been in effect, we have extended the reporting deadline as follows:
  • Reporting companies that were created or registered prior to January 1, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN. (These companies would otherwise have been required to report by January 1, 2025.)
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after September 4, 2024 that had a filing deadline between December 3, 2024 and December 23, 2024 have until January 13, 2025 to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies created or registered in the United States on or after December 3, 2024 and on or before December 23, 2024 have an additional 21 days from their original filing deadline to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN.
  • Reporting companies that qualify for disaster relief may have extended deadlines that fall beyond January 13, 2025. These companies should abide by whichever deadline falls later.
  • Reporting companies that are created or registered in the United States on or after January 1, 2025 have 30 days to file their initial beneficial ownership information reports with FinCEN after receiving actual or public notice that their creation or registration is effective.
  • As indicated in the alert titled “Notice Regarding National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)”, Plaintiffs in National Small Business United v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-01448 (N.D. Ala.)—namely, Isaac Winkles, reporting companies for which Isaac Winkles is the beneficial owner or applicant, the National Small Business Association, and members of the National Small Business Association (as of March 1, 2024)—are not currently required to report their beneficial ownership information to FinCEN at this time.
On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc., et al. v. Garland, et al., No. 4:24-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, issued an order granting a nationwide preliminary injunction. On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a stay of the district court’s preliminary injunction enjoining the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) entered in the case of Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, pending the outcome of the Department of the Treasury’s ongoing appeal of the district court’s order. Texas Top Cop Shop is only one of several cases that have challenged the CTA pending before courts around the country. Several district courts have denied requests to enjoin the CTA, ruling in favor of the Department of the Treasury. The government continues to believe—consistent with the conclusions of the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Virginia and the District of Oregon—that the CTA is constitutional. For that reason, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the Department of the Treasury, filed a Notice of Appeal on December 5, 2024 and separately sought of stay of the injunction pending that appeal with the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
reply
37 sats \ 0 replies \ @ca9dfac669 24 Dec
That second bullet is spectacular in its hubris! The very same could be said about every single law or regulation that’s ever been overturned/ruled against by any federal court since 1789.
reply
134 sats \ 0 replies \ @siggy47 23 Dec
Disappointing, but not shocking.
reply
10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 24 Dec
The three-judge panel included U.S. Circuit Judges Carl Stewart and Stephen Higginson, both appointees of Democratic presidents, and U.S. Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes, an appointee of Republican former President George W. Bush. Haynes partly dissented from the decision, agreeing that a nationwide injunction was not appropriate but saying she would have kept it in place for the plaintiffs, including NFIB's members.
reply