Amicus Curiae Brief — National Small Business United, dba National Small Business Association, et al., Petitioners v. Scott Bessent, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.

No. 25-1201

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS UNITED, DBA

NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

SCOTT BESSENT, SECRETARY

OF THE TREASURY, et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of A ppeals for the Eleventh Circuit

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND AMICUS

BRIEF OF COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS

INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

Robert M. Diamond

Counsel of Record

Reed Smith LLP

1301 K Street NW, Suite 1100E

Washington, DC 20005

(703) 641-4273

rdiamond@reedsmith.com

Attorney for Amicus Curiae

(Additional Counsel Listed at End of Motion and Brief)

121086

A

(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859

1

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b), Amici

Community Associations Institute (“CAI”) moves this

Court for leave to file the attached Brief Amici Curiae in

support of Petitioners. Notice of intent to file this brief was

not provided to the parties pursuant to Supreme Court

Rule 37.2(a), and accordingly leave of Court is required.

Notwithstanding the failure to provide advance notice,

leave should be granted because CAI’s brief presents a

unique and important perspective on the practical impact

of the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) on community

association that is not adequately addressed by the

parties, and acceptance of the brief will assist the Court

in fully understanding the consequences of its decision.

In further support of this Motion, CAI states as follows:

1. Com mu n ity A ssociat ions Inst itut e is a n

international organization dedicated to providing

infor mation, education, resources, and advocacy

for community association leaders, members, and

professionals with the intent of promoting successful

communities through effective, responsible governance

and management. CAI’s more than 51,000 members include

homeowners, board members, association managers,

community management firms, and other professionals

who provide services to community associations. CAI is

the largest organization of its kind, serving more than

78 million homeowners who live in more than 373,000

community associations in the United States.

2

2 . CA I and its members recog nize that the

sustained health of the community association form of

ownership in the United States depends in large part

upon the willingness of owners to continue to serve on

volunteer boards to make their homes and communities

better places to live. Community Associations were not

given one of the twenty-three (23) exemptions under

the Corporate Transparency Act.1 CAI believes that

this was an oversight. CAI respectfully submits that

homeowner associations are not “hotbeds” of financial

crimes or terrorist activity by anonymous players using

shell corporations to disguise their activities, which is

the stated purpose of the Corporate Transparency Act

(“CTA”).

3. Leave to file a brief as amici curiae should be

granted when “the amici have an ‘interest in the case,’ and

it appears that their brief is ‘relevant’ and ‘desirable,’” such

as when “it alerts the merits panel to possible implications

of appeal.” Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. C.I.R., 293 F.3d

128, 133 (3rd Cir. 2002) (Alito J.) (quoting Fed. R. App. P.

29(a)(3)); see also id. at 132 (“The criterion of desirability

set out in Rule 29(b)(2) is open-ended, but a broad reading

is prudent.”).

4. CAI submits that their experience in representing

and supporting community associations both in the United

States and internationally and understanding the make

and needs of the various community associations in the

United States. CAI states that it can provide an important

perspective concerning how the CTA will adversely impact

1. A small number may be exempt as 501(c)(4) organizations,

however, that is the exception to the norm.

3

community associations without furthering the stated

purpose of the CTA.

5. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2 an amicus

curiae brief filed before the Court’s consideration of a

petition for a writ of certiorari must be filed within 30

days after the case is placed on the docket. The Petition

for a writ of certiorari was filed on April 15, 2026, and

CAI’s submission of this Motion and Brief on May 18,

2026, is timely.

6. As required by the Supreme Court Rule 37.2(b),

CAI states that it did not provide timely notice of its intent

to file at least ten days before the filing deadline. CAI did

not provide such notice. This Court should nonetheless

accept this brief for the following reasons: (a) both

Petitioners and Respondents will have a full opportunity

to respond to the arguments presented herein in their

respective merits briefs and reply briefs; (b) no party

will be prejudiced by acceptance of this brief, as the brief

raises issues of broad public importance that the Court

will need to consider regardless; and (c) CAI’s perspective

as the largest community association organization in the

United States is uniquely relevant to assessing the CTA’s

impact on the millions of homeowners in community

associations, a perspective that the parties themselves

are not positioned to provide.

For these reasons, Amici respectfully request that the

Court grant this Motion for Leave to File a Brief Amici

Curiae and accept the attached brief for filing.

4

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Diamond

Counsel of Record

Reed Smith LLP

1301 K Street NW, Suite 1100E

Washington, DC 20005

(703) 641-4273

rdiamond@reedsmith.com

Todd A. Sinkins

Rees Broome, PC

1900 Gallows Road, Suite 700

Tysons Corner, CA 91403

Edmund A. A llcock

Norm F. Orban

A llcock M arcus LLC

10 Forbes Road, 400 West

Braintree, MA 02184

Julie Howard

Nowack Howard LLC

One Alliance Center,

Suite 1650

350 Lenox Road NE

Atlanta, GA 30326

Thomas Ware

Kulik Gottesman

Siegal & Ware LLP

16303 Ventura Boulevard,

Suite 1400

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

5

Brendan P. Bunn

Chadwick, Washington,

Moriarty, Elmore

& Bunn PC

Three Flint Hill

3201 Jermantown Road

Fairfax, VA 22030

Dated: May 18, 2026

i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. W hether Congress exceeded its authority

under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Corporate

Transparency Act’s beneficial ownership reporting

requirements for entities created solely under state

law, including nonprofit community associations whose

activities are predominantly intrastate and noncommercial.

2. Whether the Corporate Transparency Act may

constitutionally impose federal reporting obligations

and criminal penalties on volunteer-run community

associations that neither substantially affect interstate

commerce nor operate as instrumentalities or channels

of interstate commerce.

3. Whether the decision below improperly expands

Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by permitting

federal regulation of entities based solely upon their

creation through filings made under state law, without

regard to whether the entities engage in interstate

commerce.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF

AMICUS CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I.

C OM M U N I T Y A S S O CI AT IONS ,

C R E A T E D T H R OU GH W HOL LY

INTRASTATE ACTION, CONDUCT

PRIMARILY INTRASTATE COMMERCE

AND ARE THEREFORE BEYOND THE

REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE

A S I M P E L M E N T E D T H R OU G H

THE CTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

II. M A N Y C O R E F U N C T I O N S O F

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS ARE

EN T IRELY NON- COM M ERCI A L ,

THUS PLACING ACTIVITIES BEYOND

THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE

CLAUSE AND THE CTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

iii

Table of Contents

Page

III. T H E DI S T I NC T ION BE T W E E N

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS AND

S M A L L BU S I N E S S E S DE M ON STRATES WHY THIS COURT SHOULD

GR A N T NSBU ’ S PET I T ION FOR

CERTIORARI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

iv

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

California Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz,

416 U.S. 21 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Gonzalez v. Raich,

545 U.S. 1 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11

Maryland v. Wirtz,

392 U.S. 183 (1968) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

NFIB v. Sebelius,

567 U.S. 519 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 12

United States v. Lopez,

514 U.S. 549 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11

United States v. Orito,

413 U.S. 139 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

STATUTES & OTHER AUTHORITIES

31 U.S.C. § 5336(a)(II)(A)(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Supreme Court Rule 37.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The Federal Volunter Immunity Act of 1997,

42 U.S.C. § 139 (1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1

IDENTITY AND INTEREST

OF AMICUS CURIAE1

The Community Associations Institute (“CAI”)

is an international nonprofit research and education

organization formed in 1973 by the Urban Land Institute,

the National Association of Home Builders, and the

United States Council of Mayors to provide the most

effective guidance for the creation and operation of

condominiums, cooperatives, and homeowner associations.

CAI is dedicated to providing information, education,

resources, and advocacy for community association

leaders, members, and professionals with the intent of

promoting successful communities through effective,

responsible governance and management. CAI’s more

than 51,000 members include homeowners, board

members, association managers, community management

firms, and other professionals who provide services to

community associations. CAI is the largest organization

of its kind, serving more than 78 million homeowners who

live in more than 373,000 community associations in the

United States. These residents constitute roughly 35.2%

of the population of the United States.

Community associations are property developments

in which a developer, or declarant, has willingly submitted

an interest in real property to some form of community

association regime. The regimes include, among others,

condominiums, homeowner associations, and cooperatives.

1. In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37.6 no party to

this case authored or assisted in any way with the preparation

of this brief. Similarly, no party to this case funded or made

any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or

submission of this brief.

2

The community association presents a unique form of

ownership where responsibility for the submitted property

is shared between the individual owner or member, on the

one hand, and an association, trust, or corporation, on the

other. To that end, many commentators have suggested

that community associations make up and comprise the

last bastion of affordable housing in the United States.

All community associations are governed by nonprofit

organizations led initially by the developer or declarant

and eventually by a group of volunteer homeowners

elected by their fellow homeowners. Depending on the

locality, community associations are formed as a nonprofit

corporation, trust, or, less frequently, unincorporated

associations. The primary role of community associations

is to manage the common areas of the community, i.e. fix

the roofs, maintain the lawns, shovel the snow, insure the

buildings, etc. The elected board of volunteer homeowners

take on or oversee these tasks free of charge. Volunteer

board members of community associations cycle on and

off their boards frequently, at least annually through the

election process, and sometimes more frequently because

of relocation, resignation, death and/or removal.

CAI submits this amicus brief on behalf of its members

who recognize that the sustained health of the community

association form of ownership in the United States

depends in large part upon the willingness of owners to

continue to serve on their associations’ volunteer boards to

make their homes and communities better places to live. 2

2. CAI has also filed an amicus brief regarding the Corporate

Transparency Act in National Small Business United, et al. v.

U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., No. 24-10736, 11th Cir.,

as well as been party to an action in Community Associations

Institute, et al. v U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., Case

3

Community associations were not given one of the

twenty-three (23) exemptions under the Corporate

Transparency Act (“CTA”). 3 CAI believes that this was

an oversight. CAI respectfully submits that community

associations are not “hotbeds” of financial crimes or

terrorist activity by anonymous players using shell

corporations to disguise their activities, which is the

stated purpose of the CTA. First, community associations

are anything but anonymous. Their owners are on public

record with local registries of deeds when they buy

property in a community. Community associations also

record the identities of their volunteer board members

with the local registry or secretary of state’s office

annually. Second, given that community association boards

are made up of volunteer homeowners who ensure the

lawns are cut, roofs are repaired, and the swimming pools

are maintained in affordable housing across America, they

are as far from a terrorist or financial threat as could be.

They are the backbone of America, homeowners living in

and volunteering to make their communities better.

Not w ithstanding this, the Financia l Cr i mes

Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and the Department

of the Treasury (collectively the “Government”) have

specifically refused to grant community associations an

exemption from reporting under the CTA. This could

be because they recognize that residents in community

associations make up 35.2% of the United States population

and because an underlying goal of the Government may

No. 1:24-cv-1597, E.D. Va., as well as in the 5th Circuit Court of

Appeals in this case.

3. A small number may be exempt as 501(c)(4) organizations,

however, that is the exception to the norm.

4

well be to create as large of a facial recognition database

as possible. However, CAI respectfully submits that

requiring community associations and their volunteer

homeowner leaders to comply w ith the beneficial

ownership reporting requirements will effectively chill

volunteer participation going forward and is contrary

to other expressly stated legislative intents to promote

volunteerism in nonprofit organizations.

The CTA contradicts Congress’s prior express intent

in encouraging and providing immunity for volunteers of

nonprofit entities. The Federal Volunteer Immunity Act of

1997, 42 U.S.C. § 139 (1997), expressly provides immunity

for negligent acts of volunteers within nonprofit entities.

In enacting this legislation, Congress specifically found

that “the willingness of volunteers to offer their services

is deterred by the potential for individual liability…

and the withdrawal of volunteers has had an adverse

effect on organizations.” Yet the CTA subjects volunteer

homeowners to imprisonment and civil fines if they don’t

upload their driver’s license to a government website

the moment they begin their service, undermining prior

legislation and prior stated legislative intent.

Volunteerism is the backbone of every community

association. Board members are not paid for their service.

CAI respectfully submits that volunteer homeowners will

be less likely to serve in that capacity if they are required

to file a beneficial ownership report with the Government,

providing their sensitive personal information including

their driver’s license and photo identification and then

to amend their filings each time their board brings on

new board members or obtain new state issued driver’s

licenses. CAI further contends that existing volunteers

5

will resign their positions. This is especially true where

failure to comply brings with it $500.00 per day fines and

the possibility of imprisonment.

The complexities of CTA could be especially punitive

to community associations. Condominium and HOA boards

typically range from five (5) to seven (7) individuals in

number. Many of them are older in age and do not have

access to technology. If a single board member out of five

(5) or seven (7) fails to timely upload their driver’s license

to a government website, it subjects the remainder of the

board members to imprisonment and fines.

It’s horrifying to imagine that a homeowner could be

subject to imprisonment in the United States of America

because they purchased a home and volunteered to serve

on the board of directors for their community association

but failed to upload a photograph of their state issued

driver’s license to a federal database. Homeowners

not only would be reluctant to volunteer in light of the

potential Orwellian consequences imposed by the CTA,

they will resign in droves.

CAI submits that the CTA will have a devastating

and unintended consequence on community associations

and their operations throughout the United States. CAI

respectfully submits that the CTA exceeds the power of

Congress to regulate activity that is governed entirely

by the states in which the community associations are

located. The CTA’s application to community associations

and their volunteer homeowners but not to business

corporations that have more than $5,000,000.00 in profits

per year demonstrates the absurdity of its reach and the

reality that it is not in furtherance of its stated purpose.

6

Moreover, as detailed herein, the CTA is constitutionally

vague and its application to community associations is like

attempting to fit a square peg into a round hole.

In keeping with CAI’s long-standing interest in

promoting understanding regarding the operation and

governance of community associations, CAI urges this

Court to grant the petition for certiorari filed by the

National Small Business United, et al.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The CTA is an unprecedented expansion of federal

authority into areas of state law. The CTA is reaching

entities whose existence, governance and activities are

local and non-commercial in nature by imposing federal

reporting obligations and penalties upon them.

Condom i n iu m a ssoci at ions a nd homeow ner s

associations are creatures of state law formed to manage

local residential properties. The activities managed are

residential and communal in nature. Unlike traditional

commercial enterprises, community associations are

not created to generate profits, participate in national

markets, or engage in interstate commerce. Many of these

entities are volunteer-run, and the CTA is now subjecting

them to the same reporting regime and penalties as are

imposed upon international businesses capable of money

laundering, tax evasion, and other crimes.

The decision of the Court of Appeals of the Eleventh

Circuit dramatically expands Congress’s Commerce

Clause authority by effectively eliminating the distinction

between federal and state activity. While the court cites

7

that Congress may regulate virtually any entity created

pursuant to state law which may engage in activities which

affect interstate commerce, that reasoning is not aligned

with United States v. Lopez and NFIB v. Sebelius, both

of which reaffirm limits on Congress’s commerce power.

This case presents important constitutional questions

concerning the limits of Congress’s Commerce Clause

authority and the distinction between federal and local

activity. Condominium associations and homeowners

associations are community associations created under

state law with the purpose of operating locally without any

intent to engage in intrastate or commercial activity. Yet,

CTA is subjecting them to federal reporting requirements

and penalties because they have filed organizational

documents under state law. CAI respectfully submits that

the inclusion of nonprofit condominium associations and

homeowners associations demonstrates the overreaching

scope of the CTA, and thus this court should grant NSBU’s

Petition for Certiorari.

ARGUMENT

I.

COMMU NITY ASSOCIATIONS , CREATED

THROUGH WHOLLY INTRASTATE ACTION,

C O N D U C T P R I M A R I LY I N T R A S T A T E

COMMERCE AND ARE THEREFORE BEYOND

THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE AS

IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE CTA.

Community associations are created in accordance

with the laws of the states where they are located.

These entities – whether homeowners’ associations,

condominiums or housing cooperatives – are formed by

8

myriad means, from filing charters with state agencies to

recording founding documents in the land records division

of local courts or even by creating private trusts or LLCs.

But in each and every case, the creation of a community

association is a wholly in-state function dictated entirely

by state law.

In addition to their creation being local, community

associations are formed w ith the core purpose of

managing and maintaining land and facilities shared by

the community’s homeowners. This typically means hiring

local landscape companies, maintenance workers or trash

collectors. As such, the essence of a community association’s

activity is necessarily intrastate, with associations being

but an occasional de minimis participant in any kind of

interstate commerce.

The Government argues that the CTA validly

regulates the channels and instrumentalities of commerce,

broadly arguing that “common sense” indicates that

“entities constituting CTA reporting companies frequently

utilize the channels of interstate commerce.” Indeed, it is

well-settled that Congress has the power to regulate those

who use the channels of interstate commerce “in order that

those channels will not become the means of promoting or

spreading evil, whether of a physical, moral or economic

nature.” United States v. Orito, 413 U.S. 139, 144 (1973).

However, this argument could not be less applicable to

community associations. Homeowners’ associations and

condominiums are necessarily local entities, with homes

within any community located entirely within one state

and one locality.

9

The CTA’s reporting requirements are aimed at

organizations created by the filing of documents with

certain state offices, but with an underlying assumption

that such entities must engage in interstate commerce.

While this might be true of a chartered corporation selling

products or services on a nationwide or regional level, it is

decidedly untrue as to community associations. Not only

are community associations created at an entirely in-state

level, their core mandate of maintaining their property

drives them to primarily intrastate commercial activity. 4

In sum, to suggest that a homeowners association

comprised of 25 homes in a local county – which is not

uncommon – frequently “uses the channels of commerce

[so that] Congress can impose conditions on that use” (as

argued by the Government, citing California Bankers

Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 [1974)]) belies the necessarily

local and intrastate nature of community associations,

both as to their formation and actual operation. As such,

the CTA is unconstitutional in its application to such

entities.

4. The Supreme Court has held that Congress, in regulating

activities that substantially affect in-state commerce, can regulate

non-economic, non-commercial or de minimis intrastate activity

only if doing so is necessary to avoid undermining a comprehensive

regulatory scheme that directly regulates interstate commerce.

Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 171-9 (2005). The question here is

whether the CTA’s regulation of intrastate or non-commercial

activities that affect interstate commerce is a necessary and

proper means of doing so – and that answer is no with respect to

community associations.

10

II. MANY CORE FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNITY

A S S O C I AT IO N S A R E E N T I R E LY NO N COMMERCIAL, THUS PLACING ACTIVITIES

BEYOND THE REACH OF THE COMMERCE

CLAUSE AND THE CTA.

Another core purpose of a community association is to

promote a sense of “community” among the homeowners

who live there, with governance carried out by member

volunteers serving on committees to organize events

ranging from “clean up the community” day to picnics

or movie nights on the common area. In most community

associations, these volunteers meet in the evenings -- after

returning home from work -- to plan such events, usually

in community clubhouses, under gazebos or even at local

schools or people’s homes.

While some associations engage in local commerce to

maintain their land, these other community-promoting

activities are decidedly non-commercial, arguably placing

associations entirely beyond the reach of the Commerce

Clause. The CTA, by its terms, would force an association

to comply w ith the requirements of a “reporting

company” solely because the entity was formed by filing

a document with a state agency. The CTA – which does

not even mention the term “commerce” – cannot be used

to drag an entity run by volunteers with non-commercial

purposes under a federal reporting law. In other words,

the Commerce Clause cannot be used as a basis to regulate

non-commercial activity.

The Supreme Court has held that Congress, in

regulating activities that substantially affect in-state

commerce, can regulate non-economic, non-commercial or

11

de minimis intrastate activity only if doing so is necessary

to avoid undermining a comprehensive regulatory scheme

that directly regulates interstate commerce. Gonzalez

v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 171-9 (2005). The question here

is whether the CTA’s regulation of intrastate or noncommercial activities that affect interstate commerce

is a necessary and proper means of doing so – and that

answer is no with respect to community associations. In

sum, the intrastate nature of the origin and operation of

community associations, along with their largely noncommercial activities, places them outside the reach of

the Commerce Clause, at least as it is implemented by the

purported purposes and terms of the CTA.

III. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY

ASSOCIATIONS AND SMALL BUSINESSES

DEMONSTRATES WHY THIS COURT SHOULD

GRANT NSBU’S PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

As NSBU argues in its Petition, the Eleventh Circuit’s

Decision has erased the distinction between what is

“National” and what is “local” as it relates to the commerce

clause. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 557 (1995)

and Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U.S. 183, 196 (1968).

While NSBU’s constituents are more likely to engage

in interstate commerce than condominiums and HOA’s,

the fact that they all come under the reach of the CTA

demonstrates CTA’s flaw. The CTA applies to these

entities regardless of whether they (1) use channels

of interstate commerce, (2) are an instrumentality of

interstate commerce, and/or (3) engage in activities that

affect interstate commerce. See Lopez at 558-559.

12

The CTA regulates the creation of legal entities under

state law, by the filing of a document under state law,

31 U.S.C. § 5336 (a)(II)(A)(i). Clearly, many of NSBU’s

constituents are likely to engage in commerce, whereas

local condominium associations and homeowner associates

will not. Yet both types of entities are equally subject to

the pains and penalties of the CTA, merely because they

filed a document with the state, under state law. That

distinction shows that the CTA, as written, is not properly

based upon congressional commerce power.

CTA’s application to condominium associations and

HOA’s actually undermines the decision of the Eleventh

Circuit. In the Decision the Court states that CTA regulates

economic activity, because “after they have incorporated”

corporations “exist primarily to use resources and engage

in activities to increase profits.” Again, while that may

be true of many of NSBU’s constituents, it is not true for

condominium associations and HOA’s, which demonstrates

that the supposed commerce power, rooted in creation

of entities, as opposed to the impact on commerce, is

unconstitutional. In any event, the concept that entities,

whether small businesses, condominiums, or homeowners

associations may engage in future interstate commerce,

is insufficient to invoke congressional commerce power.

See NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).

CAI respectfully submits that the inclusion of

non-profit condominium associations and homeowner

associations volunteers within its reach demonstrates why

this Court should grant NSBU’s petition for certiorari.

13

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, respectfully submits

that this court should grant the NSBU’s Request for

Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert M. Diamond

Counsel of Record

Reed Smith LLP

1301 K Street NW, Suite 1100E

Washington, DC 20005

(703) 641-4273

rdiamond@reedsmith.com

Todd A. Sinkins

Rees Broome, PC

1900 Gallows Road, Suite 700

Tysons Corner, CA 91403

Edmund A. A llcock

Norm F. Orban

A llcock M arcus LLC

10 Forbes Road, 400 West

Braintree, MA 02184

Julie Howard

Nowack Howard LLC

One Alliance Center,

Suite 1650

350 Lenox Road NE

Atlanta, GA 30326

14

Thomas Ware

Kulik Gottesman

Siegal & Ware LLP

16303 Ventura Boulevard,

Suite 1400

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Brendan P. Bunn

Chadwick, Washington,

Moriarty, Elmore

& Bunn PC

Three Flint Hill

3201 Jermantown Road

Fairfax, VA 22030

Dated: May 18, 2026