Court Opinion

ID: 9425672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:15:24.085808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:56.873120
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Powell,
with whom Mr. Justice Black-mun joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion, but add a word concerning the Act’s domestic reporting requirements.
The Act confers broad authority on the Secretary to require reports of domestic monetary transactions from the financial institutions and parties involved! 31 U. S. C. §§ 1081 and 1082. The implementing regulations, however, require only that the financial institution “file a report on each deposit, withdrawal, exchange of currency or other payment or transfer, by, , through, or to such financial institution, which involves a transaction in currency of more than $10,000.” 31 CFR § 103.22 (italics- added). As the Court properly recognizes, we must analyze plaintiffs’ contentions in the context of the Act as narrowed by the regulations. Ante, at 64. From this perspective, I agree that the regulations do not constitute "an impermissible infringement of any constitutional rigfrt. .
A significant extension of the regulations’ reporting requirements, however, would pose substantial and difficult constitutional questions for me. In their full reach, the reports apparently authorized by the open-ended language of the Act touch upon intimate areas of an individual’s personal affairs. Financial transactions can reveal much about a person’s activities, associations, *79and beliefs. At some point, governmental-intrusion upon these areas would implicate legitimate expectations of privacy. Moreover, the potential for abuse is particularly acute where, as here, the. legislative scheme permits access to this information without invocation of the judicial process. In such instances, the important responsibility for balancing societal and individual interests is left to unreviewed executive discretion, rather than the scrutiny of a neutral magistrate. United States v. U. S. District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 316-317 (1972). As the issues are presently framed, however, I am in accord with the Court’s disposition of the matter.