AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 298: Listen and Learn -- The Dormant Commerce Clause
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 108: Listen and Learn -- The Commerce Clause
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a pivotal piece of legislation aimed at preventing financial crimes, is under constitutional scrutiny. We previously reported that on March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the...more
As discussed in our prior two alerts (found here), effective as of Jan. 1, 2024, the Corporate Transparency Act and rules issued thereunder by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) (collectively, the “CTA”)...more
On Friday, March 1, 2024, a federal judge in Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act is unconstitutional. See NSBU v. Yellen, No. 5:22-cv-1448, 2024 BL 69366, 2024 Us Dist Lexis 36205 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 01, 2024). Here...more
On March 1, 2024 a United States District Court in Alabama held in National Small Business United dba National Small Business Association v. Yellen (NSBA Case) that the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) is unconstitutional. ...more
On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) is unconstitutional. The CTA requires many U.S. entities to disclose their individual beneficial...more
In 2021, Congress passed the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which will be administered and enforced by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the United States Treasury Department, in an effort to implement...more
On March 1, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northeastern Division published an opinion finding that the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”) is unconstitutional as exceeding the U.S....more
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which became effective on January 1, 2024, was enacted to combat the use of shell companies by those seeking to evade anti-money laundering laws and economic sanctions. ...more
On March 1, 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama declared the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) unconstitutional, and suspended its enforcement against the plaintiffs in that case. While most...more
Recent Development - On March 1, 2024, a federal court in Alabama ruled that the Corporate Transparency Act violates the U.S. Constitution and is unenforceable on its face. The decision (NSBU v. Yellen) is highly...more
Don’t panic! It is business as usual for those subject to the Corporate Transparency Act (the “CTA”). On March 1, 2024, Judge Liles C. Burke of the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held the CTA...more
The National Small Business Association (NSBA) and a small business owner (also a member of the NSBA) filed a lawsuit on Nov. 15, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging the...more
On March 1, 2024, an Alabama federal court declared the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) unconstitutional—but only enjoined its enforcement as to the specific litigants. As described in our prior alerts, the CTA...more
The decision of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the case of National Small Business United v. Yellen, announced on Friday, March 1, 2024, has created uncertainty for both reporting companies...more
On Mar. 1, 2024, a federal district judge in Alabama ruled that the CTA is unconstitutional, holding that it exceeds the powers granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. The ruling permanently enjoins FinCEN from...more
One of the most interesting aspects of marijuana law and policy in the U.S. is its tendency to strike at our most foundational democratic principles. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress...more
Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen’s ambitious plan to provide $2 billion in property tax relief via an increase in the sales tax rate and an expansion of the sales tax base is stirring significant debate. Part of his proposal is...more
The test for personal jurisdiction, which asks whether a defendant can be compelled to litigate in a particular state, has been extensively developed over the past several decades, and notably refined in the last fifteen...more
The US Supreme Court recently issued a decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co holding that a Pennsylvania statute requiring corporations to "consent" to suit in Pennsylvania courts in order to register to do...more
On June 27, 2023, the United States Supreme Court held in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., No. 21-1168, 2023 WL 4187749, that Norfolk Southern submitted to the state of Pennsylvania’s general jurisdiction (that is, being...more
Here at Foley, we routinely represent companies, whether manufacturers, distributors, service providers, or others that are, by necessity, registered to do business in most or all of the fifty states. For years, the U.S....more
Tag, You’re It! SCOTUS Ruling Against Norfolk Southern Extends Reach of Personal Jurisdiction Upon Corporate Defendants - A plurality of the United States Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that will likely permit...more
Late last month the Supreme Court of the United States opened the door to a potential sea change in personal jurisdiction over corporate entities. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company, the Court held that any...more
The United States Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., finding Pennsylvania’s consent to jurisdiction by corporate registration unconstitutional in a 5-4...more
A recent (and surprising) ruling of the United States Supreme Court may allow businesses to be sued in states in which they have little connection. The United States Supreme Court, split 5-4 (Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor...more