SCOTUS Issues Emergency 8-1 Decision — Trump-Appointed Justices Step In!
While a legal challenge is still ongoing in a lower court, the federal government petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reinstate a federal anti-money laundering statute.
With Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as the sole dissenter, the court issued an emergency stay, temporarily blocking a federal judge’s injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). This law mandates that millions of business entities disclose personal details about their owners.
Just three days after President Trump’s inauguration, the Supreme Court responded to an intervention request filed by the Biden administration’s Justice Department late last month. Although Trump had opposed the legislation during his first term, his Justice Department had not withdrawn the measure.
Reports indicate that the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which was included in the annual defense bill in early 2021, requires small business owners to submit personal data—including addresses and birth dates—to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network as part of efforts to combat money laundering and other financial crimes.
Business groups and anti-regulatory advocates have been closely monitoring the dispute, aiming to push back the enforcement deadline, according to reports.
“The case will now return to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which will weigh the Justice Department’s defense of the law as a valid exercise of Congress’s constitutional authority over interstate commerce,” The Hill reported. “In the meantime, the justices’ order paves the way for officials to implement the disclosure requirement, which had been set to go into effect this month.”
Jackson dissented alone, arguing that the government had failed to demonstrate “sufficient exigency” and emphasizing that the 5th Circuit was already moving swiftly in handling the appeal. Notably, Jackson is the only justice on the Court appointed by former President Biden.
“The Government deferred implementation on its own accord—setting an enforcement date of nearly four years after Congress enacted the law—despite the fact that the harms it now says warrant our involvement were likely to occur during that period,” she wrote in her dissent.
“The Government has provided no indication that injury of a more serious or significant nature would result if the Act’s 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,” Brown Jackson continued.
On the other hand, the DOJ argued that any further delay would cause irreversible harm.
“It 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’ ability to press other countries to improve their own anti-money laundering regimes, and severely disrupts the ongoing implementation of the Act,” former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stated in the government’s application to the Supreme Court.
According to The Hill, the Supreme Court declined Prelogar’s alternative request to place the case on its regular docket, a move that would have allowed the justices to address a broader issue—whether federal district judges should have the power to issue nationwide injunctions against laws.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have increasingly used “universal injunctions” to strike down laws and regulations, and resolving this issue could have had significant consequences for future administrations.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court appointee, has previously voiced skepticism about these injunctions and indicated he would have been open to reviewing the matter.