Judge Halts Federal Scrutiny of $200 Transactions
The temporary restraining order allows time to challenge burdensome reporting requirement.
Among the many intrusions of the federal government into our lives is the requirement that cash transactions of $10,000 or more be reported to the authorities. It's just one exercise in surveillance of our lives that should be done away with. But instead of abolishing currency transaction reports, the federal government recently lowered the reporting threshold to $200 in some border areas. Fortunately, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the order in California while legal challenges move forward.
Targeting Criminals While Burdening the Innocent
"Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) to further combat the illicit activities and money laundering of Mexico-based cartels and other criminal actors along the southwest border of the United States," the U.S. government's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network announced March 11. "The GTO requires all money services businesses (MSBs) located in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas near the southwest border to file Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) with FinCEN at a $200 threshold, in connection with cash transactions."
A decade ago, the policy change might have been justified in the name of fighting terrorists; these days, the feds fret over criminal cartels (although, as Reason's Joe Lancaster reported, President Donald Trump split the difference by designating cartels as terrorists). But no matter who government officials claim to be targeting, the burden of compliance always falls on individuals and small businesses.
The change is a big one. Prior to the March 11 announcement, the threshold had been set at $10,000 since 1972. The dollar has lost much of its purchasing power since then, meaning that more and more transactions are subject to the reporting requirement, increasing the burden of compliance.
Creeping Surveillance Through Inflation
"The inflation-adjusted threshold in 2023 would have been about $72,880," a December 2024 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report observed. "Using an inflation-adjusted threshold would have reduced the number of CTRs filed by at least 90 percent annually since 2014."
Not only are Americans suffering under intrusive paperwork, but law enforcement is trying to drink from a firehose of reports. "Law enforcement agencies accessed less than 3 percent of CTRs filed from 2014 through 2023," the GAO added.
But instead of eliminating or streamlining the reporting requirement, the feds lowered the threshold. That means much more paperwork for everybody in the affected ZIP codes.
"Esperanza Gomez and Arnoldo Gonzalez, Jr. run small businesses near the U.S.-Mexico border that provide everyday, small-dollar financial services—often for customers without bank accounts," the Institute for Justice noted in an April 15 press release about a lawsuit challenging the lowered reporting threshold. "While $10,000 is a large amount to Esperanza and Arnoldo's customers—Esperanza's business, for instance, has never had a transaction that large—lowering the threshold to $200 will mean that almost every transaction triggers a report. The reports require detailed information including birthdates, Social Security numbers, and home addresses."
Each report takes Gomez and Gonzalez 20 minutes to file, which means hours of extra work every day. Meanwhile, any actual criminals interested in evading the reporting requirement can take their business to a ZIP code outside the affected area. The excessiveness of the policy change proved persuasive to U.S. District Judge Janis Sammartino of the Southern District of California. On Tuesday, she issued a temporary restraining order that applies to enforcement of the reporting threshold change in the California ZIP codes.
Arbitrary and Capricious Federal Intrusion
"Sammartino ruled that the San Diego plaintiffs, Gomez and her business, Novedades y Servicios Plus, 'have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims,'" reports Alex Riggins of The San Diego Union-Tribune. "The plaintiffs had argued that the geographic targeting order was unlawfully issued without undergoing the notice-and-comment procedures prescribed by federal law and that the rule is arbitrary and capricious under federal law."
"The government's order enlists these businesses to carry out an unprecedented and sweeping government surveillance system, and buried them in paperwork in the process," commented Institute for Justice Senior Attorney Rob Johnson. "We are grateful for this temporary relief and will continue to fight to make it permanent."
The plaintiffs plan to request an extended restraining order that will remain in place for the duration of litigation. Ultimately, they hope to entirely overturn the lowered reporting requirement.
Earlier this month, financial services businesses along the Texas border won a more-targeted restraining order against the government that temporarily relieves them of the burden of compliance while their lawsuit proceeds. One of the plaintiffs in that case pointed out that many of his competitors are located on the Mexican side of the border, beyond the reach of U.S. government reporting requirements.
From Financial Privacy to Scrutiny in a Few Decades
In a May 2024 piece for Reason, Nicholas Anthony and Naomi Brockwell pointed out that financial surveillance has become increasingly intrusive in recent decades with relatively little pushback relative to other forms of government snoopiness.
"Compared to today, customers in the 1970s had far more freedom in opening accounts and interacting with their own money. Back then, the decision to transact with a bank could be based on the cash in one's pocket," they wrote. "Transactions were not scrutinized for threats of terrorism or drug trafficking. Customers were not legally required to supply a photo ID to set up an account."
Change, and the erosion of financial privacy, came with the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act, they added. Inflation has further extended the government's reach by applying what were once high-dollar thresholds for scrutiny to relatively common transactions. Along with the Biden administration's aborted attempt to monitor cash flows of as little as $600, the recent FinCen reduction of the reporting threshold to $200 makes it clear that government officials want to know where our money is at all times.
Hopefully, more forceful pushback against financial surveillance will begin with the temporary restraining order in California and its companion in Texas.
