The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reinstate a federal anti-money laundering law at the request of the federal government while a legal challenge continues in a lower court.<\/p>\n
The court\u2019s emergency stay temporarily halts a federal judge\u2019s injunction that had blocked the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which mandates that millions of business entities disclose personal information about their owners, noting that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter.<\/p>\n
PlayUnmute
\nFullscreen
\nLate last month, the Biden-era Justice Department requested the high court\u2019s intervention, and the court issued its ruling just three days after President Trump\u2019s inauguration. <\/p>\n
While Trump\u2019s Justice Department did not withdraw the application, he had opposed the new law during his first term in office.<\/p>\n
Passed as part of the annual defense bill in early 2021, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) requires millions of small business owners to provide personal information, such as dates of birth and addresses, to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which aims to combat money laundering and other crimes, the report continued.<\/p>\n
The dispute has drawn significant attention from business groups and anti-regulatory advocates, who are working to delay the impending deadline, the outlet added.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe case will now return to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will weigh the Justice Department\u2019s defense of the law as a valid exercise of Congress\u2019s constitutional authority over interstate commerce,\u201d The Hill said. \u201cIn the meantime, the justices\u2019 order paves the way for officials to implement the disclosure requirement, which had been set to go into effect this month.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jackson, the only justice appointed to the court by former President Biden, was the sole dissenter, arguing that the government had not demonstrated \u201csufficient exigency\u201d and pointing out that the 5th Circuit was already hearing the government\u2019s appeal on an expedited schedule.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Government deferred implementation on its own accord\u2014setting an enforcement date of nearly four years after Congress enacted the law\u2014despite the fact that the harms it now says warrant our involvement were likely to occur during that period,\u201d she wrote in her dissent.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant nature would result if the Act\u2019s implementation is further delayed while the litigation proceeds in the lower courts. I would therefore deny the application and permit the appellate process to run its course,\u201d Brown Jackson continued.<\/p>\n
The DOJ, meanwhile, argued that pausing the deadline would cause irreparable harm.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt prevents the government from executing a duly enacted Act of Congress, impedes efforts to prevent financial crime and protect national security, undermines the United States\u2019 ability to press other countries to improve their own anti-money laundering regimes, and severely disrupts the ongoing implementation of the Act,\u201d former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote in the government\u2019s application to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court rejected an alternative proposal from Prelogar to move the case to the justices\u2019 regular docket, which would have allowed them to address the broader issue of federal district judges\u2019 authority to block laws nationwide, noted The Hill.<\/p>\n
Advertisement
\n\u201cUniversal injunctions\u201d have become an increasingly common tool used to challenge laws and regulations implemented by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Addressing this issue would have had significant implications for legal challenges to future administrations.<\/p>\n
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump\u2019s first appointee who has voiced previous concerns about such injunctions, said he would have looked at the issue.<\/p>\n
\u201cI agree with the Court that the government is entitled to a stay of the district court\u2019s universal injunction. I would, however, go a step further and, as the government suggests, take this case now to resolve definitively the question whether a district court may issue universal injunctive relief,\u201d Gorsuch noted in a brief concurrence with the majority.<\/p>\n
The case began when a firearms dealer, a dairy farm, an information technology company, one of its owners, the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), and the Libertarian Party of Mississippi challenged the Corporate Transparency Act, arguing that it exceeded Congress\u2019s authority.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to reinstate a federal anti-money laundering law at the request of the federal government while a legal challenge continues in a lower… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29254","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"yoast_head":"\n