The US Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Merits Panel and again removed the injunction issued by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against enforcement of the beneficial ownership reports under the Corporate Transparency Act (McHenry v. Texas Top Cop Shop (originally Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland), Application for Stay, US Supreme Court, January 23, 2025). As of the time this is being written FinCEN has not yet posted information about the new due date for reports originally due while the enforcement was on hold.

Due to the change in Administrations, the name of the acting Attorney General (James R. McHenry III) has replaced the name of former Attorney General Merrick Garland in the case name.

Decision: The Supreme Court granted the Government’s application for stay. This means that the amended order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is put on hold. The stay will remain in place while the case is being appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. If a writ of certiorari is sought, the stay will continue until the Supreme Court decides on the matter. If certiorari is denied, the stay terminates automatically, and if granted, the stay ends when the Supreme Court issues its judgment.

Concurring Opinion: Justice Gorsuch concurred with the Court’s decision to grant the stay. He stated that the government is entitled to a stay of the district court’s universal injunction. Justice Gorsuch would go further by taking the case now to resolve whether a district court can issue universal injunctive relief. He references previous cases where he argued for addressing this issue, Labrador v. Poe and Department of Homeland Security v. New York.

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Jackson dissented from the grant of stay. She believes that emergency relief is not necessary because the applicant has not shown enough urgency to justify intervention by the Supreme Court. She notes that the Fifth Circuit has expedited its consideration of the government’s appeal. She further states that the government itself delayed implementation of the law for nearly four years and has not indicated that a more serious injury would occur if the implementation is further delayed while the litigation proceeds in lower courts. Justice Jackson would allow the appellate process to continue without intervention. She also referenced her dissent in Labrador v. Poe.

The decision, concurrence and dissent can be read at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a653_c07d.pdf

Prepared with assistance from NotebookLM.