Filed in May 2025, the lawsuit names FinCEN and its director Andrea Gacki, and Department of Finance and its secretary Scott Bessent, as defendants. In the lawsuit, FNF says the law, which was announced under the Biden administration, is “unreasonable and unreasonable,” and that the law will cause “irreparable harm.”
The law requires title firms to report certain information about all-cash home purchases. This includes the names, addresses, dates of birth, citizenship status and social security numbers of all the people involved — including children, payment details and information about trusts and estate buying organisations.
The rule was the result of “reasonable decision-making by FinCEN”
In a response to FNF’s objections filed Tuesday, the defendants argued that the magistrate judge “properly concluded that FinCEN’s Residential Reporting Act is preempted by the Bank Secrecy Act, and that the rule was the result of “considered decision-making by FinCEN.” Because of these allegations, defendants argue that none of FNF’s objections to the jury’s findings should be sustained.
“At times, the objection goes so far as to misconstrue the Report – apparently on purpose – to make it appear less reasonable than it is,” the defendants wrote in their filing. “Contrary to plaintiffs’ unsupported objections, the Report presents a careful, thorough and fair analysis of the issues presented in the brief and reflected in the extensive record.”
Contrary to the way the report was viewed by the plaintiffs, who concluded that all unsupervised financial transactions are “suspicious” under the new law, the defendants argue that it explains that the current lack of federal monitoring of the transactions the law applies to can be exploited by illegal players.
Additionally, the defendants dispute FNF’s claim that FinCEN lacks the authority to impose these reporting requirements, arguing that Congress has “independently authorized FinCEN to impose permanent reporting obligations through regulations… and temporary reporting obligations through GTOs. [geographic targeting orders].”
The FNF has also argued that the costs of the law outweigh its benefits, and says the report allows it to stand. Instead, the defendants argue that the report “merely notes that [rule] did not require FinCEN to quantify the benefits of the Act or demonstrate that such benefits outweigh the calculated costs of the Act, as plaintiffs generally conceded at oral argument.”
The defendants request that the court enter an order overruling the plaintiffs’ objections and accept the magistrate judge’s report in its entirety.
In late September, FinCEN announced that it was delaying the implementation of the policy from Dec. 1, 2025, to March 1, 2026.
At the time, FinCEN said the decision was made to “reduce the burden on businesses and ensure effective regulation.”
