Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass'n of America, Ltd.

Last updated

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass'n of America, Ltd.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 3, 2023
Decided May 16, 2024
Full case nameConsumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, et al.
Docket no. 22-448
Citations601 U.S. 416 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Questions presented
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 12 U.S.C. 5497, violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 7, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the CFPB was receiving such funding.
Holding
The funding scheme of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional and in accordance with historic funding mechanisms.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
ConcurrenceKagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett
ConcurrenceJackson
DissentAlito, joined by Gorsuch
Laws applied
U.S. Const. art I, § 9, cl. 7

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass'n of America, Ltd., 601 U.S. 416(2024), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is allocated from the Federal Treasury budget rather that through Congressional appropriations, is constitutional under the Appropriations Clause.

Contents

Background

The CFPB was created after the financial crisis of 2007–2008 as part of the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. While initially aimed to protect consumers from bad mortgage lenders that had partially created the financial crisis, the CFPB has also involved itself in other areas at high risk of fraudulent activity that harm consumers, such as credit cards, credit reporting, and for-profit colleges. As it is generally seen as pro-consumer, the CFPB had generally been contested by conservative politicians and large corporations. [1]

One of the first legal challenges to the operations of the CFPB arose from the Supreme Court case Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), which challenged the inability for the director of the CFPB to be removed by the president except for cause, and was argued by that nature, the whole of the CFPB was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed that the director of the CFPB was considered an officer of the United States and thus could be removed by the president as to maintain the separation of powers, but otherwise the agency's structure was constitutional.

Lower courts

The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSAA), a trade group for the payday lending industry, filed a lawsuit in 2018 challenging a CFPB rule restricting payday lending. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas upheld the rule. The CFSAA appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which in October 2022 upheld the rule against an Administrative Procedure Act challenge, but held it must be vacated because it was created when the agency was funded by the Federal Reserve. The Fifth Circuit held this funding mechanism was unconstitutional. [2]

Supreme Court

Less than a month after the Fifth Circuit decided the case, the CFPB filed a petition for a writ of certiorari at the Supreme Court, and the Biden administration asked for the Supreme Court to "fast track" the case to be heard during the 2022 Supreme Court term. [2] [3] The Supreme Court granted certiorari on February 27, 2023, and denied the motion to expedite consideration of the case. [4] Oral argument was held on October 3, 2023. [5] [6] [7] The case was argued, on behalf of the CFPB, by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and, on behalf of the CFSAA, by former Solicitor General Noel Francisco.

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the CFPB in a 7–2 decision written by Justice Thomas. [8] [9]

Related Research Articles

The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) is a trade association in the United States representing the payday lending industry.

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217 (2000), is a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that public universities may subsidize campus groups by means of a mandatory student activity fee without violating the students' First Amendment rights.

The PHH Corporation is an American financial services corporation headquartered in Mount Laurel, New Jersey which provides mortgage services to some of the world's largest financial services firms. PHH is the biggest U.S. outsourcer of home loans, processes and originates mortgages on behalf of small banks and some of the world's largest financial firms, including Morgan Stanley and HSBC Holdings Plc. On October 4, 2018 Ocwen Financial completed its acquisition of PHH Corporation and PHH is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Ocwen Financial Corp.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Josephine Staton</span> American judge (born 1961)

Josephine Laura Staton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Financial Protection Bureau</span> United States government agency

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

<i>English v. Trump</i>

Leandra English v. Donald Trump, et al., No. 1:17-cv-02534, was a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff, Leandra English, alleged that the defendants, Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney, violated 12 U.S.C. § 5491(b)(5)(B), a component of the Dodd–Frank Act of 2010, when President Trump appointed Mulvaney to be Acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

A Tribal Lending Enterprise (TLE) is a type of American financial services and lending organization owned and operated by a federally-recognized Native American tribal government. Native American tribal governments have established TLEs to further expand their business portfolios beyond traditional industries associated with tribal economies, such as gaming, payday lending, natural resources, and government contracting. Native American tribal lending is often operated through an online hub, based on sovereign tribal land, and offering loans to consumers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kathy Kraninger</span> American government official (born 1974)

Kathleen Laura Kraninger is an American government official who served as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from December 11, 2018, until her resignation on January 20, 2021. Before that, she served in the White House Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration.

Jam v. International Finance Corp., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. The Supreme Court ruled that international organizations, such as the World Bank Group's financing arm, the International Finance Corporation, can be sued in US federal courts for conduct arising from their commercial activities. It specifically held that international organizations shared the same sovereign immunity as foreign governments. This was a reversal from existing jurisprudence, which held that international organizations had near-absolute immunity from lawsuits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the International Organizations Immunities Act.

Rotkiske v. Klemm, 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act of 1977. The Court ruled that the statute of limitations begins one year after the alleged FDCPA violation took place, not one year after the violation was discovered by the plaintiff. This ruling affirmed a decision by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. It is noteworthy for being the first signed opinion released from the 2019 term. It is also noteworthy for resolving a circuit split regarding a major consumer protection law.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.

Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers; the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.

AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission, 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with the ability of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seek monetary relief for restitution or disgorgement from those that it found in violation of trade practices. The Court ruled unanimously that the FTC had misused its authority granted by the Federal Trade Commission Act under Section 13(b) to obtain monetary relief.

Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., 595 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of state officials to intervene to defend the constitutionality of state laws.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, 598 U.S. 471 (2023), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case considered whether Internet service providers are liable for "aiding and abetting" a designated foreign terrorist organization in an "act of international terrorism", on account of recommending such content posted by users, under Section 2333 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Along with Gonzalez v. Google LLC, Taamneh is one of two cases where social media companies are accused of aiding and abetting terrorism in violation of the law. The cases were decided together in a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled that Taamneh's case could proceed. The cases challenge the broad liability immunity for hosting and recommending terrorist content that websites have enjoyed.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. 762 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration is unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, 601 U.S. 42 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case holding that the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waives the sovereign immunity of the United States.

References

  1. Hiltkez, Michael (July 23, 2015). "Consumer protection: Why do Republicans hate the CFPB so much?". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved May 16, 2024.
  2. 1 2 Golde, Kalvis (November 18, 2022). "Government appeals decision against Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved November 21, 2022.
  3. Ford, Matt; Noah, Timothy (February 27, 2023). "The Supreme Court Could Destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". The New Republic. ISSN   0028-6583 . Retrieved February 28, 2023.
  4. Howe, Amy (February 27, 2023). "Court will review constitutionality of consumer-watchdog agency's funding". SCOTUSblog.
  5. "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved October 3, 2023.
  6. Iacurci, Greg (October 3, 2023). "Supreme Court case may gut the CFPB: Consumer watchdog's 'future is on the line,' group says". CNBC. Retrieved October 3, 2023.
  7. Bravin, Jess; Ackerman, Andrew (October 3, 2023). "Supreme Court Justices Wary of Argument Against Financial Watchdog's Funding". The Wall Street Journal. News Corp. Retrieved October 3, 2023.
  8. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/16/supreme-court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-funding-structure-is-legal.html
  9. "CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ET AL. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., ET AL" (PDF). Supreme Court.