Incorporator The Journal of U.S. Formation
Start Free Quiz
Editorial 6 MIN READ

NSBA v. Yellen: the CTA faces a constitutional stress test in Huntsville

Summary judgment is pending before Judge Burke on enumerated-powers and Bill of Rights grounds, and the injunction scope is the whole ballgame

The Editors
Staff, Incorporator.org
6 min read Updated
Contents 6 sections
  1. What the plaintiffs are actually arguing
  2. The mechanics of what is actually being challenged
  3. Why the injunction scope is the real fight
  4. What to actually do while the case is pending
  5. What to watch next
  6. Sources

suit challenging the Corporate Transparency Act is under submission for summary judgment at the Northern District of Alabama, and the ruling will be the first federal decision on whether Congress had the constitutional authority to require beneficial-ownership reporting from roughly 32 million existing entities. The case is National Small Business Association v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-1448, before Judge Liles C. Burke in Huntsville.

The reporting obligation itself is live. FinCEN's final rule took effect January 1, 2024, and reporting companies formed before that date have until January 1, 2025, to file a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report. Companies formed during 2024 have 90 days from formation. Nothing about the pending Alabama case changes those deadlines today.

What the plaintiffs are actually arguing

The National Small Business Association, joined by an individual member plaintiff, filed in November 2022. The amended complaint rests on two theories stacked on top of each other.

The first is enumerated-powers: Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or its taxing power to compel a purely in-state, non-commercial reporting regime from entities organized under state law. The CTA reaches single-member LLCs holding a rental house, family partnerships holding a hunting lease, and corporations that never cross a state line. The argument is that formation under state law is not itself interstate commerce, and that the federal anti-money-laundering rationale cannot sweep in every closely held entity in the country without some limiting principle.

The second theory is a cluster of Bill of Rights claims. The First Amendment piece frames beneficial-ownership reporting as compelled disclosure of associational and political information, invoking the NAACP v. Alabama line. The Fourth Amendment piece argues the regime is a general warrantless search of private records held by private parties about themselves. The Ninth and Tenth Amendment claims reassert that entity formation sits in the reserved powers of the states, and that Congress displacing it intrudes on a core state function.

Amicus support lines up where you would expect. The Cato Institute and the National Federation of Independent Business have filed briefs supporting the plaintiffs on structural-federalism and small-business compliance-burden grounds. The government's defense leans on Congress's foreign-affairs power, the money-laundering and terrorism-financing findings Congress made in the statute itself, and the long history of federal recordkeeping mandates on entities with federal tax or securities obligations.

The mechanics of what is actually being challenged

It helps to separate the statute from the rule. The Corporate Transparency Act is Title LXIV of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-283, enacted January 1, 2021 over a presidential veto. It sits at 31 U.S.C. § 5336 and defines a "reporting company," exempts 23 categories (large operating companies, banks, investment advisers, public companies, and so on), and directs FinCEN to maintain a non-public database accessible to law enforcement, certain financial institutions for customer-due-diligence purposes, and a handful of other authorized users.

FinCEN's implementing rule, the Beneficial Ownership Information Reporting Rule, was published at 87 Fed. Reg. 59498 (Sept. 30, 2022). It is codified at 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380. The rule is what sets the filing windows, the data fields (name, date of birth, residential address, and an image of an acceptable identifying document for each beneficial owner), and the 30-day update obligation when information changes.

The Alabama case attacks the underlying statute, not just the rule. A ruling that the CTA itself exceeds Congress's power would not leave the rule standing on independent grounds. A ruling that the rule is arbitrary and capricious, by contrast, would be a different and narrower kind of loss for the government.

Why the injunction scope is the real fight

Even if the plaintiffs prevail, the remedy is where the practical question lives. The individual plaintiff is named. The NSBA is an association with members nationwide. Whether a Northern District of Alabama ruling binds FinCEN as to every non-party reporting company is governed by the usual nationwide-injunction skepticism that the Supreme Court has been signaling since Trump v. Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit cases that followed. DHS v. New York in early 2020 drew a sharp Gorsuch concurrence on the point, and a trial court in Huntsville is unlikely to ignore that signal.

The realistic ceiling is a declaratory judgment plus an injunction running to the named individual plaintiff and to the NSBA's members as of a defined date. That is meaningful relief, but it does not cover the single-member Delaware LLC that a reader of this site formed last Tuesday. FinCEN will continue to enforce the rule against non-parties while it appeals to the Eleventh Circuit. Any broader relief would almost certainly be stayed pending appeal.

The other path, which the court could take if it rules for the government, is a straightforward Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause holding that connects entity formation to the federal interest in preventing the laundering of illicit foreign funds through U.S. shell companies. That reasoning would track the FinCEN preamble to the 2022 rule and the congressional findings in § 6402 of the CTA.

What to actually do while the case is pending

File the BOI report. The deadlines in 31 C.F.R. § 1010.380(a) are in force. A pre-2024 entity has until January 1, 2025. A 2024-formed entity has 90 days from the date its formation is effective under state law. A change in reported information (a new address for a beneficial owner, for example) triggers a 30-day update window. Civil penalties under 31 U.S.C. § 5336(h) run at $500 per day, capped at $10,000, plus potential criminal penalties for willful violations.

A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor, whenever it arrives, will not retroactively cure a missed deadline for a non-party. Nor will it give a non-party standing to rely on someone else's injunction. The cleanest posture for anyone not named in the suit is compliance now, with an eye on the docket for the appellate trajectory.

For founders forming a new LLC this quarter, the practical advice is unchanged from December: form in the state that makes sense, collect the beneficial-owner information before you file the formation certificate (it makes the 90-day BOI filing a non-event), and keep the operating agreement and cap table in a place you can pull from in 30 days when something changes. For readers weighing Delaware versus a lower-cost state, the CTA is neutral across states; it attaches to the entity, not the jurisdiction.

What to watch next

Three things. First, the timing of Judge Burke's ruling; the case has been fully briefed and argued, so it could come at any point. Second, whether any ruling for the plaintiffs is scoped narrowly (named plaintiff plus NSBA members) or broadly (all reporting companies), and what the Eleventh Circuit does with a stay motion within days of that order. Third, whether parallel suits that have been filed or contemplated in other circuits produce a split that moves the question toward the Supreme Court on something faster than the ordinary timetable.

The CTA is the most significant federal intrusion into the mechanics of state-chartered entities in living memory, and it was enacted with the usual NDAA process rather than as its own bill. Whether that bolts on cleanly to existing Commerce Clause doctrine is a live question, and one federal judge in Huntsville is about to give the first answer.

Sources

Keep reading

More from the journal.