🐐 The FinCEN Rule Is Dead—So Why Is Fidelity Still Appealing? The Fight That Decides What Comes Back
The rule is dead for now—but Fidelity’s appeal could shape how much authority FinCEN has to rebuild, rewrite, or revive real estate AML reporting nationwide.
🐐 About Wicked Title | 🔔 Upgrade Now | 📢 Be a Sponsor
Why Fidelity is appealing now: because the Florida loss is still a live bad judgment against Fidelity, even though Flowers currently vacated the rule nationwide. Fidelity does not want the only appellate-level development to be FinCEN choosing whether/when to appeal Flowers in the Fifth Circuit. By appealing its own loss to the Eleventh Circuit, Fidelity keeps its challenge alive and creates another path to an appellate ruling against FinCEN’s authority.
The key issue is the district-court split. Florida said FinCEN had authority; Texas said FinCEN exceeded its authority and vacated the rule entirely. The Texas court rejected FinCEN’s theory that all non-financed residential transfers to entities/trusts can be treated as categorically suspicious under the BSA. Meanwhile, the Florida court rejected Fidelity’s statutory, APA, and constitutional objections and entered judgment for FinCEN.
Why Fidelity Is Still Fighting
The appeal matters because Fidelity is trying to turn the Florida loss into an Eleventh Circuit win. If it wins, FinCEN could be facing two anti-rule appellate tracks instead of one Texas district-court vacatur. That would make it much harder for FinCEN to simply revive the same rule through a stay, appeal, or minor procedural cleanup
A. Prevent a Pro-FinCEN Precedent From Hardening
The Florida court upheld FinCEN broadly and deferred heavily to the agency’s authority.
If Fidelity had not appealed:
that pro-FinCEN ruling would stand in the Eleventh Circuit,
potentially becoming persuasive authority elsewhere,
and strengthening FinCEN’s position if the rule returns in any form.
By appealing, Fidelity keeps that ruling contested and preserves arguments against broad interpretations of FinCEN’s authority.
And this matters because the Florida court accepted FinCEN’s argument that entire categories of transactions could be treated as inherently suspicious.
The Texas court rejected that exact logic.
That split is now the heart of this entire fight.
B. Influence What Any Future Rewrite Looks Like
This may actually be the most important strategic issue.
Because even if the current version of the rule dies, appellate decisions will still shape:
what authority FinCEN has going forward,
what transaction categories it can regulate,
what reporting burdens are permissible,
and how broadly “suspicious activity” authority can be interpreted.
Fidelity likely wants appellate courts to place limits on:
categorical reporting,
nationwide dragnet-style collection,
expansive beneficial ownership demands,
and broad interpretations of suspicious activity authority.
Because if those legal principles survive unchallenged now?
The next version of this rule could come back even stronger.
C. This Is Bigger Than “Compliance Burdens”
Large underwriters are not just worried about annoying paperwork.
They are looking at enterprise-level institutional risk.
Because the rule effectively deputizes settlement professionals into AML gatekeepers.
And that introduces:
audit exposure,
enforcement exposure,
negligence concerns,
cybersecurity risk,
and extensive documentation burdens.
Operationally, companies suddenly have to deal with:
beneficial ownership tracing,
documenting exemptions,
certifying negatives,
handling inconsistent ownership structures,
and collecting highly sensitive personal data.
And that creates very real:
privacy liability,
cyber insurance concerns,
retention issues,
and reputational exposure.
For title agents, the practical implication is this:
The rule is dead for now, but the legal fight is very much alive. FinCEN’s own RRE page says reporting persons are not currently required to file and are not subject to liability while the court order remains in force. But Fidelity’s appeal tells us the industry is not just waiting to see whether FinCEN appeals Flowers. The title industry is actively trying to build appellate law that keeps this version of the rule dead—and boxes in whatever FinCEN tries next.
🐐 Wicked translation:
Flowers killed the rule. Fidelity is trying to make sure it stays buried.
🐐 About Wicked Title | 🔔 Upgrade Now | 📢 Be a Sponsor
The Wicked Title Forum is a collaborative resource. If you spot something outdated or inaccurate, leave a comment—we’ll get it fixed.
**DISCLAIMER**
Content is for informational purposes, operational awareness and workflow strategy. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, it is not meant to be a compliance directive or replace the specific legal/financial advice of your retained experts. As always evaluate new information & tools with your underwriter/attorney, accountant/financial advisor, IT/security team, and internal policies, as needed, before implementation.
This site is partially supported by sponsor ads and sponsored content.