Good morning and welcome to Supreme Court Brief. The justices end their first week of the November argument session with a case involving the Bank Secrecy Act, pitting business against government and whistleblower interests. We take a quick look. It was an uncomfortable moment for an Arizona government lawyer when Justice Kagan called him out for a footnote in the state's brief in a capital case. We have the details. And, not surprisingly, the commentary on the justices' affirmative action arguments flowed quickly; scroll down for some of the latest.

Thanks for reading. We welcome feedback and tips. Contact Marcia Coyle at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @MarciaCoyle. 

Daniel L. Geyser partner with Haynes and Boone. Courtesy photo

A Taxing Problem

The interests of business and whistleblowers are on opposite sides this morning in a case with significant implications for banking regulations, civil penalties for violations and holders of foreign bank accounts. The question in Bittner v. United States is whether a violation under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file a single annual report, no matter the number of foreign accounts, or whether there is a separate violation for each account that is not properly reported.

The act's regulations require those with foreign bank accounts to file an annual form, commonly called an "FBAR," listing their accounts with an aggregate balance over $10,000. Penalties can be very stiff, especially for willful violations.