SCOTUS

The Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) has issued its decision concerning the nationwide injunction against the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) and its beneficial ownership information (“BOI”) reporting requirements.

On Thursday, January 23, 2025, SCOTUS ruled to allow the Government to enforce the CTA, which requires millions of businesses to file BOI reports. The justices stayed, or lifted, the nationwide injunction that had been blocking the CTA's enforcement. This decision permits the government to proceed with implementing the CTA while its merits are reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is scheduled to hold oral arguments on March 25.

What does this all mean? 
Although this decision lifted the injunction against the CTA, there is another lawsuit that has placed the CTA reporting requirements on hold. See our post on the Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury for more information. As of the time of this publication, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) of the U.S. Department of Treasury has updated their website to confirm that businesses are not currently under any obligation to file BOI reports. Business owners are encouraged to visit the FinCEN website regularly to stay informed about the latest reporting requirements and deadlines.

The push to repeal the CTA goes beyond the court system.
While multiple lawsuits have been filed challenging the constitutionality of the CTA, there has also been legislative activity aimed at repealing it. Representative Warren Davidson and Senator Tommy Tubervillehave reintroduced legislation in their respective chambers of Congress to repeal the CTA. These proposals were introduced in the previous congressional session but did not advance. With the new administration and a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress, it will be interesting to see how these efforts progress.

How do I file a BOI report?
Business owners can still voluntarily complete all BOI reporting by visiting the FinCEN website. There is no cost to file a BOI report. However, if a business engages a tax professional, attorney, or other third party to file a BOI report on its behalf, the business will be responsible for covering any professional fees associated with the preparation and submission of the report.

Reporting companies will need the following information: (1) the reporting company’s legal name, (2) tax identification number, (3) jurisdiction of formation, and (4) current U.S. address. For their beneficial owners, reporting companies will need the following information: (1) full legal name, (2) residential address, (3) a form of identification, which must be either a state issued driver’s license, a state/local/tribe-issued ID, a U.S. passport, or a foreign passport, and (4) an image of the identification used in number (3). See our law bulletin for more details on reporting requirements. 

Conclusion.
For now, businesses are not required to file BOI reports with FinCEN. However, should the Government appeal the decision in the Smith case, things could change. As always, we will try our best to keep you informed of the latest developments. 

Happy last day of June! We close out the month with another Ag Law Harvest, which brings you two interesting court cases, one about an Ohio man asserting his right to give away free gravel, and another which could decide the constitutionality of “Ag-Gag” laws once and for all. We also provide a few federal policy updates and announcements. 

Ohio Department of Agriculture Prohibited from Fining a Landowner for Charging to Load Free Gravel.  In May of 2020, Paul Gross began selling gravel and topsoil (collectively “gravel”) that he had accumulated from excavating a pond on his property. Gross charged $5 per ton of gravel, which was weighed at a scale three miles from his property. After receiving a complaint of the gravel sales, the Madison County Auditor sent a Weights and Measures Inspector to investigate Gross’s gravel sales. The Inspector informed Gross that the gravel sales violated Ohio Administrative Code 901:6-7-03(BB) (the “Rule”) because the gravel was not being weighed at the loading site. Under the Rule, “[s]and, rock, gravel, stone, paving stone, and similar materials kept, offered, or exposed for sale in bulk must be sold . . . by cubic meter or cubic yard or by weight.” As explained by the Inspector, Gross’s problem was that he was selling gravel by inaccurate weight measurements because the trucks hauling the gravel lose fuel weight when traveling the three miles to the scale. 

Instead of installing scales on his property, Gross decided to start giving away the gravel for free. However, Gross did charge a flat rate fee of $50 to any customer that requested Gross’s help in loading the gravel. According to Gross, this $50 fee was to cover the cost of his equipment, employees, and other resources used to help customers load the gravel. Unsatisfied with the structure of this transaction, the Ohio Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) decided to investigate further and eventually determined that even though Gross was giving away the gravel for free, the flat fee for Gross’s services represented a commercial sale of the gravel and, therefore, Gross was in continued violation of the Rule. 

For the alleged violation, the ODA intended to impose a $500 civil penalty on Gross, who requested an administrative hearing. The hearing officer recommended imposing the penalty and the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas agreed. Gross appealed the decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which found that Gross was not in violation of the Rule. 

The Tenth District reasoned that customers were paying for the service of moving the gravel, not for the gravel itself. The court explained that the purpose of the Rule is to protect consumers by ensuring transparent pricing of materials like gravel. Since Gross was not in the business of selling gravel and the transaction was primarily for services, the court concluded that the ODA’s fine was impermissible. 

North Carolina Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Review “Ag-Gag Law.”  In 2015, the North Carolina Legislature passed the North Carolina Property Protection Act, allowing employers to sue any employee who “without authorization records images or sound occurring within” nonpublic areas of the employer’s property “and uses the recording to breach the [employee’s] duty of loyalty to the employer.” After the act’s passage several food-safety and animal-welfare groups, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”), challenged the Property Protection Act in an effort to prevent North Carolina from enforcing the law. 

A federal district court in North Carolina struck down the law, finding it to be a content-based restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s ruling also reasoning that the law’s broad prohibitions restrict speech in a manner inconsistent with the First Amendment. Now, the North Carolina Attorney General, Josh Stein, has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), asking the Court to reverse the 4th Circuit’s decision. If SCOTUS decides to hear the case, the justices will be tasked with determining “[w]hether the First Amendment prohibits applying state tort law against double-agent employees who gather information, including by secretly recording, in the nonpublic areas of an employer’s property and who use that information to breach their duty of loyalty to the employer.” 

We have reported on several Ag-Gag laws and the court challenges that have followed. If SCOTUS decides to take up the case, we may finally have a definitive answer as to whether Ag-Gag laws are constitutional or not. 

Lab-grown Chicken Given the Green Light by the USDA. The United States Department of Agriculture’s (“USDA”) Food Safety and Inspection Service granted its first approvals to produce and sell lab-grown chicken to consumers. Upside Foods and Good Meat, the two entities given the green light by the USDA, plan on initially providing their “cell-cultivated” or “cultured” chicken to patrons of restaurants in the San Francisco and Washington D.C. areas. However, the timeline for such products showing up in your local grocery store has yet to be determined.  

USDA Suspends Livestock Risk Protection 60-Day Ownership Requirement. The USDA’s Risk Management Agency issued a bulletin suspending the 60-day ownership requirement for the Livestock Risk Protection (“LRP”) program. Normally under the LRP, covered livestock must be owned by the producer within the last 60 days of the specified coverage endorsement period for coverage to apply. According to the bulletin, “[d]ue to the continuing severe drought conditions impacting many parts of the nation, producers are struggling to find adequate supplies of feed or forage, causing them to market their livestock sooner than anticipated.” In response, the USDA is allowing producers to apply to waive the 60-day ownership requirement, subject to verification of proof of ownership of the livestock. The USDA hopes this waiver will allow producers to market their livestock as necessary while dealing with the current drought effects. Producers will be able to apply for the waiver until December 31, 2024. 

USDA Announces Tool to Help Small Businesses and Individuals Identify Contracting Opportunities. Earlier this month, the USDA announced a new tool “to assist industry and small disadvantaged entities in identifying potential opportunities for selling their products and services to USDA.” USDA’s Procurement Forecast tool lists potential contracting or subcontracting opportunities with the USDA. Until now, businesses could only access procurement opportunities through the federal-wide System for Award Management (“SAM”). The USDA hopes the Procurement Forecast tool will provide greater transparency and maximize opportunity for small and underserved businesses.