Every Lawsuit Against the FinCEN RRE Rule — And Why None Have Stopped It

The FinCEN RRE rule went into effect on March 1, 2026, but lawsuits have been challenging it since before it was finalized. If you work in title, escrow, or real estate law, you have probably heard some version of: "Don't worry about compliance — this thing is getting struck down in court."

That is a dangerous bet. As of today, one major lawsuit has already been decided in FinCEN's favor, a second is still pending, and the rule is live and enforceable nationwide. Here is the full picture so you can make compliance decisions based on facts, not wishful thinking.

Already compliant and just want to stay current on the legal landscape? Bookmark this page — we will update it as rulings come in. If you still need to build your compliance process, start with our last-minute compliance guide.

Fidelity National Financial (FNF), the largest title insurance company in the United States, filed a federal lawsuit in Jacksonville, Florida, arguing that FinCEN exceeded its statutory authority under the Bank Secrecy Act. FNF's core argument: the BSA authorizes reporting of *suspicious* transactions, not *all* non-financed transfers. Requiring blanket reporting of every cash-to-entity deal, they argued, goes beyond what Congress intended.

The court disagreed. U.S. District Judge Berger granted FinCEN's cross-motion for summary judgment, ruling that the rule "was statutorily authorized by the Bank Secrecy Act" and was the result of "reasoned decision-making by FinCEN." The judge found that FinCEN's eight years of Geographic Targeting Orders — which required similar reporting in specific metro areas since 2016 — provided an adequate factual basis for expanding the rule nationwide.

FNF has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report and could appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. But for now, the federal trial court has validated FinCEN's authority to impose the rule. This is the strongest legal signal to date that the RRE rule will survive.

In early 2026, a coalition of Puerto Rico-based organizations — the Puerto Rico Privacy Association, ViveApto Trust, and Pilar Fiduciary Services LLC — filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the rule on privacy and constitutional grounds. Their arguments are different from FNF's:

Privacy concerns: the rule requires collecting and transmitting Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and residential addresses of beneficial owners to the federal government. The plaintiffs argue this creates an "unprecedented" database of sensitive ownership information with significant cybersecurity risks, especially since the data must be retained for at least five years.

Conflict with local law: the plaintiffs contend the rule conflicts with existing privacy and identity safeguards in Puerto Rico's legal framework, creating a jurisdictional tension between federal reporting requirements and territorial privacy protections.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the rule unlawful and unenforceable and to issue an injunction preventing enforcement, particularly for Puerto Rico-based parties. This case is still pending — no ruling yet. Even if the court issues a narrow injunction specific to Puerto Rico, it would not affect enforcement in the 50 states.

Yes. The Administrative Procedure Act allows challenges to federal agency rules, and the statute of limitations for APA claims is six years. Additional plaintiffs — real estate attorney associations, state bar groups, or other industry organizations — could file new lawsuits raising different legal theories.

Possible arguments that have not yet been litigated include Fourth Amendment unreasonable search claims (requiring disclosure of personal information without suspicion), First Amendment concerns (compelled speech by requiring attorneys to disclose client information), and challenges under the major questions doctrine — the Supreme Court principle that agencies need clear Congressional authorization for rules with major economic or political significance.

However, each new lawsuit would start from scratch in a trial court, take months or years to resolve, and face the precedent of the FNF ruling. The legal uncertainty is real, but it is uncertainty about the future, not about today's obligations.

Nothing changes. The rule is effective, enforceable, and has survived its first court challenge. Here is what matters for your daily operations:

File on time. Penalties start at ~$1,394 per negligent violation and scale to $250,000 plus prison time for willful non-compliance. "There's a pending lawsuit" is not a defense to a FinCEN enforcement action. See our penalties explainer for the full breakdown.

Do not wait for an appeal. Even if FNF appeals to the Eleventh Circuit, that process takes 12 to 18 months. Meanwhile, the rule remains in effect unless a court issues a stay — and no court has done so. Betting your firm's compliance on an appellate outcome you cannot predict is not a risk management strategy.

Do not bet on Congress rescinding the rule. Some industry voices have suggested Congress might use the Congressional Review Act to nullify the rule. That requires majority votes in both chambers and a presidential signature. Given bipartisan support for anti-money-laundering enforcement in real estate, this is extremely unlikely.

You may be thinking of the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting rule under the Corporate Transparency Act, which faced a successful legal challenge and injunction in late 2024. That situation created an expectation that federal reporting rules are fragile. The RRE rule is structurally different.

The BOI rule required every small business in America to report beneficial ownership directly to FinCEN — a broad mandate affecting 33 million+ entities with no connection to a specific transaction. Courts found that scope problematic. The RRE rule, by contrast, targets specific transactions (non-financed transfers to entities/trusts) and imposes obligations on regulated settlement professionals already subject to various state and federal requirements.

FinCEN also built a stronger evidentiary record for the RRE rule. Eight years of Geographic Targeting Orders in cities like Miami, New York, and Los Angeles generated data showing that all-cash entity purchases are disproportionately associated with money laundering. That data directly supports the rule's scope. The BOI rule had no equivalent pilot program. For the full regulatory timeline, see our history piece.

The legal landscape will continue evolving. We will update this article as new rulings are issued. But the compliance calculus is simple:

The cost of compliance is low — learn the reporting cascade, collect beneficial ownership data using a certification form, file through BSA E-Filing, and retain records for five years. The cost of non-compliance starts at $1,394 per violation and goes up from there.

Start with the free checker to determine if your current transactions are reportable. If they are, our Filing Kit ($49) includes every template you need — determination records, certification forms, designation agreement templates, and filing checklists. Use code FINCEN25 for 25% off.

The lawsuits are worth watching. They are not worth waiting for.