Corporate Transparency Act Foes Reject Pausing Case for New Rule

A group of Oregon business owners clashed with the government over whether to pause their challenge to the Corporate Transparency Act, claiming the US is seeking to indefinitely delay and strategically moot the case.

The plaintiffs, including the owners of an agriculture business, a jeweler, an automotive repair shop, and a nursing delegation service, together asked the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to continue hearing their challenge to the CTA, which creates a registry of individuals who own anonymous shell entities.

The law was intended to combat illicit financial schemes like money laundering and tax evasion, but faced several constitutional challenges throughout last year for alleged overreach by Congress into state authority. The Oregon business owners alleged that same overreach, and also claimed the law’s reporting obligations were an unconstitutional invasion of their privacy.

The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to pause Corporate Transparency Act enforcement against their businesses, then appealed when the district court denied that request. Domestic companies anticipated having to make disclosures at the time, but the Trump administration published interim revisions in March that exempted US citizens and domestic companies from needing to do so.

The US asked the appeals court to pause proceedings following its revision, saying the businesses don’t face any imminent harm under its interim rule and a final rule later this year could make the case moot.

“Holding this case is abeyance would inject even more uncertainty and likely needlessly duplicate expedited litigation similar to that which occurred across the country prior to the CTA’s 2025 deadline—an unnecessary waste of both parties’ and this Court’s resources,” the companies said in a response on Wednesday, urging the suit to continue.

Despite its claims about the interim rule, the government may nevertheless enforce the CTA against domestic companies in the future, the businesses told the Ninth Circuit. For that reason, the court should move forward and still consider the constitutionality of the underlying law, they said.

“The government cannot commit itself to consistent litigating positions or decide whether it should enforce the CTA domestically,” the motion said. “In other words, the government hopes that it can run out the clock and strategically avoid review.”

Kell, Alterman & Runstein LLP and the Center for Individual Rights represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Firestone v. Bessent, 9th Cir., No. 24-6979, response in opposition 4/23/25.