The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) of 1970 arguably violates the U.S. Constitution on several grounds:

1 Fourth Amendment (Unreasonable Searches and Seizures): The BSA requires financial institutions to report transactions over $10,000 and maintain records subject to government inspection without a warrant. This blanket surveillance lacks individualized suspicion, violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches. In United States v. Miller (1976), the Supreme Court held that bank records are not protected under the Fourth Amendment due to the third-party doctrine, but critics argue this enables unchecked government access to private financial data, undermining privacy rights.

2 Fifth Amendment (Due Process and Self-Incrimination): The BSA’s reporting requirements, like Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), compel banks to act as government agents, collecting and disclosing customer information without clear notice or consent. This may violate due process by bypassing judicial oversight. Additionally, forcing individuals to disclose financial details through Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) could implicate self-incrimination, though courts have not fully upheld this view (see California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz, 1974).

3 Tenth Amendment (Federal Overreach): The BSA imposes federal mandates on private banks, arguably exceeding Congress’s enumerated powers and infringing on state authority over local financial institutions. The Act’s broad regulatory scope lacks a clear constitutional basis beyond the Commerce Clause, which critics argue is overstretched.

While courts have generally upheld the BSA, these constitutional tensions remain debated, particularly as surveillance expands with amendments like those in the Patriot Act.