A federal district court finds the Corporate Transparency Act unconstitutional

[zukiphile]

If any of you have an ownership or direction interest in a state created entity, most typically a corporation or LLC, you may already know about Fincen beneficial ownership interest reporting. It requires those entities to register the personal information of beneficial owners and the people reporting that information to the US Treasury. Failure to comply comes with criminal and financial penalties.

You aren't registering because you've done anything more than have an interest (maybe) under state law, but you will register your information with federal law enforcement just in case they need it.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.alnd.183445/gov.uscourts.alnd.183445.51.0_1.pdf

While the opinion is about the constitutional limits of the federal government more generally, you can hear an echo of Bruen in some of its reasoning.

For starters, “the most telling indication of [a] severe constitutional problem. . . is the lack of historical precedent’ for Congress’s action.” NFIB, 567 U.S. at 549. The Court cannot find, and the parties have not identified, any other State or federal law like the CTA. The Government correctly points out that Congress routinely requires entities to submit information to the government without a suspicion of wrongdoing, but the cases it cites in support are not on point. (Doc. 40 at 11) (citing Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 393, 399 (1938) (upholding statute criminalizing tax evasion as an exercise of Congress’ enumerated taxing power); and Elec. Bond & Share Co. v. SEC, 303 U.S. 419, 432-33, 437 (upholding public utility holding company regulation where petitioners conceded that their corporate structure and operations “involve[d] continuous and extensive use of the mails and instrumentalities of interstate commerce.”)).
Furthermore, “n addition to being a historical anomaly,” Seila L. LLC v.
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2202 (2020), the CTA runs into
trouble because it is not a facial regulation of commercial activity, a hallmark of valid substantial effects legislation. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 613 (2000).

p. 35-36.

This is just a district court opinion granting a permanent injunction against enforcement against the plaintiffs, but it will surely be stayed on appeal.

 

[MZ5]

The historical precedent thing does remind one of Bruen, doesn't it?

I'm not quite sure how comfortable I am with the notion that there can be no laws other than those which existed 200 years ago.

 

[44 AMP]

I'm not quite sure how comfortable I am with the notion that there can be no laws other than those which existed 200 years ago.

I'm not quite sure how comfortable I am with people that jump immediately to the extreme end (either end) of issues.

But, that's what makes headlines and sells news these days.

We have, currently, boatloads of laws that I consider unnecessary, and which don't have any historical precent in principle beyond the huge blanket of "protecting the people". Which has been used by all rulers to do both good and evil, based on their definitions of what was needed.

ALL gun control laws fall into that group, in my opinion. When the law says you cannot shoot people for fun or profit, what more is needed??

None, to my way of thinking, but we have a huge amount of laws restricting what you can own and use, when you aren't harming anyone. Punish the innocent, in the hope they won't become guilty never seemed right to me.