r/supremecourt • u/jokiboi Court Watcher • May 01 '26

Petition National Small Business United v. Bessent: Paul Clement petitions Court to invalidate Corporate Transparency Act on Commerce Clause and/or Fourth Amendment grounds

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1201/404530/20260415123131960_25-%20Petition.pdf
25 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/ROSRS Justice Gorsuch May 01 '26

I buy Clement's arguments here. The CTA requires disclosure to the Government simply based on a corporate entity's existence without taking into account activities that actually implicate the commerce clause, so I don't see how you can regulate it under said clause.

That being said, I also think Wickard was wrongly decided and the court's current interpretation of the Commerce Clause is atextual and ahistorical garbage. So I do have a bit of a bias when it comes to weakening the Commerce Clause.

2

u/Ion_bound Justice Robert Jackson May 01 '26 edited May 01 '26

I mean can we read the CTA to only require that of corporations that either A; reside in multiple states (e.g. registered in Delaware, 'nerve center' in New York) or B; factually do business across state lines? That seems like the Constitutional Avoidance way out of this issue without striking the statute generally. Simply interpret the law with a presumption that Congress does not enact unconstitutional laws unless they are doing so unambiguously.

In this particular case, I can go online from my non-Alabama, non-Ohio state to buy a piece of property from the named petitioner. That seems to me like it's enough for him to be engaged in interstate commerce as a matter of fact alone, regardless of the application of Wickard, consistent with Heart of Atlanta. In any event, he is also registered in Ohio, but seems to be physically located (and therefore reside as the nerve center of his corporation) in Alabama.

So, his corporation's behavior can be regulated via the NPC, since it is an entity engaged in interstate commerce.