Firm to Farm: More BOI Follies

BOI reaches the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS-Building_GaryBlakeleyAdobeStock_27844626_1920x1080

Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

Photo by Gary Blakeley

The Federal Government has filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay of the nationwide preliminary injunction that the federal district court for the eastern district of Texas issued last month while the matter is pending on the merits in the courts. In its brief (150 pages), the government asserts that the BOI reporting requirements impose only a minimal burden on businesses and that the injunction is overbroad.

The Federal Government’s request goes to Justice Alito, who is responsible for emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit. He can act on the request on his own or he can direct the Federal Government to file a response. He also could simply refer the request to the full court.

—

Stay tuned. If you have attended my seminars or have followed my commentary on the BOI rules, you know that I have been saying all along that this would end up at the Supreme Court.

Maybe the incoming Congress will deal with the issue - once there is a new Congress that can do business. Will Chuck Grassley be President come January 20??? At least for a bit.

—

Agricultural Law and Taxation by Roger McEowen is a reader-supported publication on Substack. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Recent Posts by Roger McEowen

Read more of Roger McEowen’s thoughts on agricultural law and policy issues that matter to farmers and ranchers on his RFD Business Blog, Firm to Farm.

For farmers and ranchers, a dog attacking livestock is more than a nuisance — it can threaten animals, livelihoods, and years of investment — but the law generally does not recognize a blanket right to shoot a dog simply for trespassing.
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are considering new WOTUS definitions following the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, with implications for farmers, ranchers and rural landowners.
Deliberately falsifying production records or other material information to obtain benefits can lead to consequences far beyond repayment. The case involving Missouri farmer Steve McBee illustrates the point.

LATEST STORIES BY THIS AUTHOR:

USDA’s Harvest Fuel Relief Program could provide short-term assistance to farmers, but ranchers await clarity on payments for fuel, feed, and cattle hauling.
A government agency may have authority to regulate groundwater, but that authority does not eliminate the agency’s obligation to respect statutory limits and established property rights.
A recent decision from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas addresses an important question: Can a farmer modify a confirmed Chapter 12 plan to extend payments on secured debt beyond five years from the date the first payment under the original plan was due?
Roger McEowen examines how President Trump’s federal diesel tax relief differs from state rules and what Kansas farmers should consider before using dyed diesel on roads.
A recent Wyoming Supreme Court ruling reminds farmers and ranchers that disputes over land access are, ultimately, disputes over property rights.
A Ninth Circuit ruling says federal sovereign immunity does not automatically bar ranchers from enforcing state-adjudicated water rights.
A Lesson in Administrative Law from South Carolina
Cooper-Clark highlights a key lesson for producers and royalty owners: in oil-and-gas royalty disputes, lease language and marketing facts are crucial.
The government should exercise humility before imposing costs on an economy as complex as American agriculture. The 2026 greenhouse-gas regulatory rollback reflects that shift.
A botched art deal demonstrates the dangers of relying on informal understandings when money changes hands.
The concern is not whether clean water, clean air, healthy soil, and responsible stewardship are desirable. Of course they are. The concern is whether calling an environmental condition a “human right” provides a coherent legal rule.
The federal government is closer to a “Waters of the United States” definition that is narrower, more predictable, and more consistent with the Constitution—but farmers should not mistake this for the end of the WOTUS saga.