Texas Association of Money Services Businesses v. Bondi, 5:25-cv-00344

In 2025, the U.S. Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) reducing the reporting threshold for money services businesses (MSBs) in certain Texas and California border zip codes from $10,000 to $200 per transaction.
The GTO did not apply to banks or large electronic money transfer services, affecting only non-bank MSBs in specified regions.
Plaintiffs, a trade association and ten MSBs, challenged the GTO, alleging it would cripple their businesses due to vastly increased paperwork, drive away customers, and confer an unfair competitive advantage to banks.
The core statutory bases for the GTO are the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and FinCEN’s authority to issue GTOs with respect to particular geographic areas and transaction thresholds.
Plaintiffs sought, and were granted, a temporary restraining order, then moved for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the GTO against their businesses.
The district court held a hearing and entered a preliminary injunction, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of some claims, including Fourth Amendment and APA violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable search and seizure	GTO is an unreasonable search, functionally a general warrant, lacking probable cause or individualized suspicion	Supreme Court precedent (Shultz, Miller) permits reporting requirements; privacy interests are minimal	GTO likely unreasonable—reporting nearly all transactions ($200+) is overbroad, unlike prior caselaw upholding $10,000 limit
Administrative Procedure Act: Notice and comment rulemaking	GTO is a substantive rule and required notice-and-comment; its issuance without such procedure was unlawful	GTO is an “order,” not a “rule,” so APA notice-and-comment not required	GTO functions as a rule, not an adjudication, so APA notice-and-comment required
Administrative Procedure Act: Arbitrary and capricious agency action	$200 threshold is arbitrary, lacks evidentiary support, and agency disregarded burdens on small businesses	Agency acted within discretion, and considered relevant factors in supporting law enforcement goals	GTO likely arbitrary/capricious—agency failed to justify burden or demonstrate efficacy
Irreparable harm	Compliance costs, loss of business, loss of constitutional rights, reputational harm are irreparable	Harms are exaggerated or speculative, some businesses already comply	Plaintiffs demonstrated likely irreparable harm

California Bankers Ass'n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974) (upheld $10,000 reporting requirement, but distinguished here as reasonable compared to the GTO)
United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632 (1950) (agency information-gathering is limited by Fourth Amendment; sweeping orders are suspect)
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (third party doctrine, but court distinguished its application to broad GTO)
Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. 296 (2018) (limiting third party doctrine; privacy interests in stored records)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (agency must articulate rational connection between facts and decision under APA)
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U.S. 414 (2021) (reasonableness and explanation required for agency action)
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024) (overruled Chevron deference; courts decide meaning of statutes independently)