Subsequent Trump and Court Action(s)

• March 24, 2025

  2025.03.24 Dept. of Treasury - FAQ on Geographic Targeting Order Along the Southwest Border

  FinCEN released FAQs on the Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) issued on March 14, 2025 which required certain money services businesses (MSBs) operating in the Southwest Border region (SWB) to report specific cash transactions. The SWB GTO FAQs clarify which MSBs are covered by this GTO, what types of transactions must be reported, and how to comply with the order. The FAQs also explain key definitions and exemptions, including how to handle aggregated transactions and customer identification. The FAQs are a resource for affected entities to understand and implement the reporting requirements correctly.

  View Document
• April 1, 2025

  2025.04.01 Complaint - Texas Association For Money Services Businesses v. Bondi

  The Texas Association of Money Services Businesses (TAMSB) filed suit in the Western District of Texas challenging the March 2025 Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) issued by FinCEN under the Bank Secrecy Act. Plaintiffs allege that the GTO violates the APA because it was issued without notice-and-comment, exceeds statutory authority, and constitutes arbitrary and capricious agency action. They further argue the order violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses by imposing disproportionate burdens on Latino-owned businesses and targeting Democratic-leaning regions without individualized justification. The lawsuit seeks to invalidate the GTO and enjoin its enforcement. Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi, No. 5:25-cv-00344-FB (W.D. Tex.)

  **Litigation entries are limited to initial complaints and major substantive rulings. For pleadings and additional information, use name and docket number to search Civil Rights Clearinghouse and CourtListener or visit Just Security Litigation Tracker**

  View Document
• April 15, 2025

  2025.04.15 Complaint - Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

  Novedades y Servicios, Inc. and Esperanza Gomez Escobar filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of California against the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), its Director Andrea Gacki, the Department of the Treasury, Secretary Scott Bessent, and AG Pam Bondi, challenging the legality of FinCEN’s Border Geographic Targeting Order (GTO). Plaintiffs allege that the GTO violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the non-delegation doctrine, the major questions doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argue the GTO functions as a general warrant, compels self-incrimination, exceeds statutory authority, was issued without proper notice-and-comment, and is arbitrary and capricious. Plaintiffs seek to vacate and enjoin the enforcement of the GTO. Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN, 3:25-cv-00886-JLS (S.D. Cal.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• April 22, 2025

  2025.04.11 Order Granting TRO - Texas Association of Money Services v. Bondi

  Judge Fred Biery of the Western District of Texas issued a TRO enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing the Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) issued by FinCEN on March 11, 2025, as applied to Plaintiff TAMSB and its 10 member businesses. Judge Biery found Plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its APA and Fifth Amendment claims, and that it would suffer irreparable harm including business closure and reputational injury absent relief. The Court held that the balance of equities and public interest favored preserving the status quo pending further judicial review. Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi, No. 5:25-cv-00344-FB (W.D. Tex.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• April 22, 2025

  2025.04.22 Order Granting TRO - Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

  Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California issued a TRO enjoining the Defendants from enforcing or implementing the Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) as applied to all covered businesses located within the district. The court found Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their APA claims that the GTO was issued without required notice-and-comment procedures and was arbitrary and capricious. The Court also found that Plaintiffs faced irreparable harm including business closure and loss of customers and goodwill; the equities and public interest favored preserving the status quo. Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN, No. 3:25-cv-00886-JLS (S.D. Cal.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 19, 2025

  2025.05.19 Preliminary Injunction - TAMSB v. Bondi

  In Texas Association of Money Services Businesses (TAMSB) v. Bondi, Judge Biery found that the FinCEN Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) targeting boder counties in Texas was likely an unreasoanble search under the Fourth Amendment, unlawfully failed to comply with notice and comment procedures, was arbitrary and capricious, and was in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act.

  Judge Biery granted the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from giving effect to the Geographic Targeting Order as applied to the member businesses of TAMSB. The Court denied the plaintiff's request to universally vacate the GTO "subject to the forthcoming opinion by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Casa, Inc. . . . regarding universal injunctions." Texas Association of Money Services Businesses (TAMSB) v. Bondi, No. 5:25-cv-00344 (W.D. Tex.)

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document
• May 21, 2025

  2025.05.21 Preliminary Injunction - Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. FinCEN

  In Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Judge Sammartino found that the FinCEN Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) targeting border counties in California was arbitrary and capricious, in excess of statutory authority, and failed to comply with notice and comment procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' claims that the GTO violated the nondelegation and major questions doctrines, and declined to reach the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claims. The Court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the GTO against "all covered businesses, as defined by the . . . GTO, that are located in the Southern District of California." Novedades y Servicios, Inc. v. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, No. 3:25-cv-00886 (S.D. Cal.).

  **See litigation note above**

  View Document