Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass'n of America, Ltd. | |
---|---|
Argued October 3, 2023 Decided May 16, 2024 | |
Full case name | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, et al. |
Docket no. | 22-448 |
Citations | 601 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson |
Concurrence | Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Concurrence | Jackson |
Dissent | Alito, 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.
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.
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]
This section needs expansionwith: Overview of ruling and dissent. You can help by adding to it. (October 2024) |
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]
Richard Adams Cordray is an American lawyer and politician who served from 2021 to 2024 as COO of Federal Student Aid in the United States Department of Education. From 2012 to 2017, he served as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Before that, Cordray variously served as Ohio's attorney general, solicitor general, and treasurer. He was the Democratic nominee for governor of Ohio in 2018. In April 2024, the Biden administration announced Cordray's departure after a chaotic rollout of changes to the FAFSA student aid application form.
The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) is a trade association in the United States representing the payday lending industry.
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.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.
Josephine Laura Staton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
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, for-profit colleges, 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.
A payday loan is a small, short-term unsecured loan, "regardless of whether repayment of loans is linked to a borrower's payday." The loans are also sometimes referred to as "cash advances," though that term can also refer to cash provided against a prearranged line of credit such as a credit card. Payday advance loans rely on the consumer having previous payroll and employment records. Legislation regarding payday loans varies widely between different countries and, within the United States, between different states.
LendUp was an American online direct lender. It offered payday loans, installment loans, and credit cards to consumers with low credit scores using publicly available data to assess creditworthiness. The company referred to its customers as “the emerging middle class.” LendUp also issued credit cards in partnership with Tom Steyer's Beneficial State Bank.
The Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013 is a bill that would restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by transforming it into a five-person commission and removing it from the Federal Reserve System. The CFPB would be renamed the "Financial Product Safety Commission." This bill is also intended to make overturning the decisions about regulations that the new commission makes easier to do.
Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. 259 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Truth in Lending Act does not require borrowers to file a lawsuit to rescind loans and that sending written notice is sufficient to effectuate rescission. Some commentators described Justice Antonin Scalia's unanimous majority opinion as "terse" and the "shortest opinion of the year". Other analysts have described Jesinoski as a "landmark case" in Truth in Lending Act jurisprudence.
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).
Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.
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.
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.
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 598 U.S. 175 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court decision that dealt with the intersection of anti-discrimination law in public accommodations with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found for a website designer, ruling that the state of Colorado cannot compel the designer to create work that violates her values. The case follows from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), which had dealt with similar conflict between free speech rights and Colorado's anti-discrimination laws but had been decided on narrower grounds.
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.