The 19th—and, likely, last—emergency application from the Biden administration includes a (surprising) request that the justices conclusively settle the propriety of "universal" equitable relief
My pet legislative solution is to limit jurisdiction to issue “universal injunctions” against the federal government to the DC District Court. That would go a long way toward killing the rampant judge shopping that happens now.
This is directed more at the CTA legislation than the court challenges, but as a small business owner (I am also a retired civil servant) trying to determine the scope of this legislation, my experience has been one of frustration. My wife and I have been running a small horse boarding business for over 2 decades, and per the recommendation of our attorney at the time, we established an LLC. Since then, our attorney became a county family judge and retired (I also retired from the county), and we have filed the requisite annual filing fees without much thought about it.
Just before Christmas (2024), a friend of ours who also occasionally performs contracted work on our farm mentioned the CTA requirement for filing the "BOI" information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). He had learned of this from his accounting firm. I was somewhat incredulous, and spent hours researching the legislation. I contacted both our accounting firm and our attorney (who, understandably, had time off for the holidays), and finally found neither was familiar with the filing requirements. Our accountant took an online training course about it, and learned of the court challenge / injunction / stay / vacating.
I told our accountant and attorney that, with the threat of "fines of up to $591 per day, adjusted for inflation, and possible imprisonment" for not filing on time, I made the decision to drudge through the FINCEN web site filing process. I was left a bit frustrated and angry with the federal government for (1) not effectively communicating this requirement to affected businesses, or requiring the appropriate state agencies to do this on their behalf, and (2) not providing clear enough information at the respective web sites for me and/or our accountant and attorney to definitively determine if our business was subject to the filing requirement (there are 23 fairly broad categories describing entities that are exempt).
The bottom line is that the federal government now has a digital copy of both my and my wife's driver licenses, and an attestation that we alone are the "BOI"s for our business. Considering the government's intent with the legislation to fight such things as money laundering and terrorism, I am not persuaded that this process for the CTA will be very effective (but will certainly cause administrative headaches for the 32+ million legitimate businesses who will try to comply).
Thank you for the explanation. I have had a problem with the "universal" application of judgments precisely for the reason several others note - it leads to forum shopping and surprisingly most often the Fifth Circuit. I can also see the other side of the issue , such judgments harmed Biden's ability to carry out the law but during Trump1.0, they also prevented the worst outcomes. Given the verbal promises of Trump 2.0 , my emotions are mixed but my mind keeps telling me that universal anything just isn't right and if that means fighting cases in one district after another then so be it though I do like the solution offered by Joeff to leave universal applications to the DC District Court - that might just square the circle and diminish the forum shopping that has become so rampant.
As an aside, the CTA applies even to members of nonprofit HOA boards who handle no money, which is absurd. Clearly, CTA is overbroad -- which is the fault of Congress, and not the courts' problem.
Is this universal injunction issue a question of jurisdiction or something else?
In other words, in this CTA case, as an example, what is the legal basis for the court's asserting jurisdiction "universally" rather than over the particular plaintiffs?
I have an uneasy feeling I'm going down the wrong path, but here goes. If Congress can define (limit) the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, why can't Congress address the universal injunction question?
I think there's broad consensus that Congress *can* address the subject of universal injunctions, whether by specifically authorizing them or prohibiting them (at least in most cases). But a big part of the current debate is whether *existing* law allows for them, which depends to some degree on how you understand the scope of the equitable powers that Congress has given federal courts the power to exercise as part of the subject-matter jurisdiction it has conferred upon them. So the fight isn't over what Congress *could* do so much as it is over what Congress has *already* done.
My pet legislative solution is to limit jurisdiction to issue “universal injunctions” against the federal government to the DC District Court. That would go a long way toward killing the rampant judge shopping that happens now.
Thank you for posting DOJ's SCOTUS Application, Garland vs Texas Top Cop Shop.
I concur.
This is directed more at the CTA legislation than the court challenges, but as a small business owner (I am also a retired civil servant) trying to determine the scope of this legislation, my experience has been one of frustration. My wife and I have been running a small horse boarding business for over 2 decades, and per the recommendation of our attorney at the time, we established an LLC. Since then, our attorney became a county family judge and retired (I also retired from the county), and we have filed the requisite annual filing fees without much thought about it.
Just before Christmas (2024), a friend of ours who also occasionally performs contracted work on our farm mentioned the CTA requirement for filing the "BOI" information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). He had learned of this from his accounting firm. I was somewhat incredulous, and spent hours researching the legislation. I contacted both our accounting firm and our attorney (who, understandably, had time off for the holidays), and finally found neither was familiar with the filing requirements. Our accountant took an online training course about it, and learned of the court challenge / injunction / stay / vacating.
I told our accountant and attorney that, with the threat of "fines of up to $591 per day, adjusted for inflation, and possible imprisonment" for not filing on time, I made the decision to drudge through the FINCEN web site filing process. I was left a bit frustrated and angry with the federal government for (1) not effectively communicating this requirement to affected businesses, or requiring the appropriate state agencies to do this on their behalf, and (2) not providing clear enough information at the respective web sites for me and/or our accountant and attorney to definitively determine if our business was subject to the filing requirement (there are 23 fairly broad categories describing entities that are exempt).
The bottom line is that the federal government now has a digital copy of both my and my wife's driver licenses, and an attestation that we alone are the "BOI"s for our business. Considering the government's intent with the legislation to fight such things as money laundering and terrorism, I am not persuaded that this process for the CTA will be very effective (but will certainly cause administrative headaches for the 32+ million legitimate businesses who will try to comply).
Thank you for the explanation. I have had a problem with the "universal" application of judgments precisely for the reason several others note - it leads to forum shopping and surprisingly most often the Fifth Circuit. I can also see the other side of the issue , such judgments harmed Biden's ability to carry out the law but during Trump1.0, they also prevented the worst outcomes. Given the verbal promises of Trump 2.0 , my emotions are mixed but my mind keeps telling me that universal anything just isn't right and if that means fighting cases in one district after another then so be it though I do like the solution offered by Joeff to leave universal applications to the DC District Court - that might just square the circle and diminish the forum shopping that has become so rampant.
As an aside, the CTA applies even to members of nonprofit HOA boards who handle no money, which is absurd. Clearly, CTA is overbroad -- which is the fault of Congress, and not the courts' problem.
Is this universal injunction issue a question of jurisdiction or something else?
In other words, in this CTA case, as an example, what is the legal basis for the court's asserting jurisdiction "universally" rather than over the particular plaintiffs?
I have an uneasy feeling I'm going down the wrong path, but here goes. If Congress can define (limit) the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, why can't Congress address the universal injunction question?
I think there's broad consensus that Congress *can* address the subject of universal injunctions, whether by specifically authorizing them or prohibiting them (at least in most cases). But a big part of the current debate is whether *existing* law allows for them, which depends to some degree on how you understand the scope of the equitable powers that Congress has given federal courts the power to exercise as part of the subject-matter jurisdiction it has conferred upon them. So the fight isn't over what Congress *could* do so much as it is over what Congress has *already* done.
Thank you for the clarification. I learn a great deal from your legal newsletters/analyses and so appreciate them.