Companies will still need to file conflict minerals disclosures and reports by June 2. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has denied an emergency motion by the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Business Roundtable to stay the conflict minerals rule.

By June 2 public companies are required to commence with their first filings to satisfy disclosure rules for the use of so-called conflict minerals (tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten) in their products that may benefit violent militia groups in the Congo. In April, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit found a requirement that companies reveal not just their supply chain due diligence, but whether or not their products are “conflict free” was a violation of free speech protections. That decision, which upheld the rest of the rule, settled a lawsuit brought against the SEC by the aforementioned business groups. As part of the decision, the case was remanded back to the district court for a more in-depth evaluation of constitutional issues.

The SEC, in response, issued a partial stay of the rule last week. Companies are still required to report on their due diligence efforts but can choose not to report on the status of conflict minerals being present in their products. The three plaintiffs, however, are asking the district court for a full stay of the rule by May 26. Earlier this month, the trade groups made one last push in court to halt implementation of the controversial rule, arguing that the accommodations rendered the disclosures meaningless.

“Without the compelled confession, the current rule makes little sense as presently designed,” they wrote. “It no longer creates incentives by shaming companies and it no longer ‘enhances transparency' by purportedly informing the public whether an issuer sourced minerals from armed groups in the DRC.”

There is, as yet, no word on the forthcoming district court review of constitutional issues in the Dodd-Frank Act statute and subsequent SEC rule.