Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Last updated
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 3, 2020
Decided June 29, 2020
Full case nameSeila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Docket no. 19-7
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2183
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC , 923 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2019), affirming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC , No. 8:17-cv-01081-JLS-JEM, 2017 WL 6536586 (C.D. Cal. 2017)
Holding
The CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts (Parts I, II, and III), joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
PluralityRoberts (Part IV), joined by Alito, Kavanaugh
Concur/dissentThomas, joined by Gorsuch
Concur/dissentKagan (concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (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.

Contents

The Court recognized that the president may generally remove officers at will. However, the Court stated there were two exceptions to this rule. First, the president's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question is a member of an agency that shares similar characteristics to the Federal Trade Commission as discussed in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). Second, Congress may constrain the president's removal power over "inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking" role as discussed in Morrison v. Olson (1988). The Court declined to extend the exceptions to "an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power."

The Court also held that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.

Background

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was envisioned by Elizabeth Warren while she was still a law professor at Harvard Law School. In 2010, it was established by the 2010 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act under President Barack Obama and the Democratic-led Congress. It was designed to protect consumers and promote regulations to prevent similar events such as the Great Recession that ran from 2007 to 2009. [1] To be able to promote these regulations, it was determined that the agency needed to be independent, and thus Congress designed the agency to have a single director, selected by the president with confirmation by the Senate, appointed to a five-year term, and who could only be removed for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." [1] [2] Since its establishment, the CFPB has actively gone after banks and other financial service providers that have been determined to be "bad actors". For instance, it fined Wells Fargo large sums of money due to the Wells Fargo account fraud scandal. [1]

The CFPB had been seen as a bane by the Republican Party and as a sign of government overreach. In the years after it was established, Republicans gained control of the Senate, and Donald Trump became president in 2017, putting the CFPB under scrutiny. Businesses that also shared a dismissive view of the CFPB began to file lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the CFPB's organizational structure. [3] [4] These lawsuits focused on the for-cause termination statute around the CFPB's directorship position. For-cause removal of agency executives presents a prima facie challenge to the separation of powers, because it places a limit—imposed by Congress—on the president's Article II authority over executive branch officials. Most courts that had considered the question found that for-cause removal of the CFPB director was constitutional. [5] However, the Supreme Court's "precedents on for-cause removal [were] a jurisprudential train wreck." [6]

An alert published by Holland & Knight noted that the litigation posture of Seila Law was unusual, as the CFPB declined to defend the constitutionality of its own structure before the Supreme Court. [7]

Facts and procedural history

Seila Law LLC (Seila Law), a law firm that provided debt relief services, was under investigation by the CFPB. As part of its investigation, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand (CID) to Seila Law, which required Seila Law to produce certain documents. Seila Law declined to comply with the CID and challenged the constitutionality of the CFPB. Judge Josephine Staton of the United States District Court for the Central District of California found the CFPB to be constitutionally structured. [8]

On appeal at the Ninth Circuit, the circuit panel affirmed the district court's ruling, and agreed that the Supreme Court's prior decisions upholding for-cause removal in Humphrey's Executor and Morrison were "controlling." [9] It also referred approvingly to the en banc decision of the DC Circuit in PHH Corp. v. CFPB (2018), in which the Circuit found that the structure of the CFPB was constitutional. [10] The courts opinion arguably created a circuit split because while the Ninth Circuit and DC Circuit had held that the CFPB's structure to be constitutional, the Fifth Circuit in Collins v. Mnuchin (2018) held that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency—an agency that had a director who was structurally similar to CFPB's—was not. [11]

Supreme Court

Majority opinion

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Seila Law on October 18, 2019, and heard oral argument on March 3, 2020. [12] The Court issued its decision on June 29, 2020. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, joined by justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The 5–4 decision ruled that the CFPB structure, with a sole director that could only be terminated for cause, was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers. Specifically, the Court held that Article II of the Constitution gives the president the power to remove principal officers at will except for two exceptions recognized under case law. [13] [14] The first exception was based on Humphrey's Executor v. United States . [13] Roberts narrowly construed Humphrey's Executor [15] to stand for the proposition that the president's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question was a member of an agency that shared the same characteristics as the Federal Trade Commission in 1935. [13] In Humphrey's, the FTC was described as "exercising 'no part of the executive power'" and as "'an administrative body' that performed 'specified duties as a legislative or as a judicial aid." [13] Because the CFPB was dissimilar from that description, the Court held that the exception did not apply. [16]

The second exception to the president's at-will removal power came from Morrison v. Olson which held that Congress could constrain the president's removal power over "inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking" role. [13] Because the CFPB director was not an inferior officer, the Court held that this exception did not apply. [16]

Having determined that the insulation of the CFPB director did not fall under an established exception, Chief Justice Roberts then looked to see whether the Court should "extend those precedents to ... an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power." He reasoned no. [17] Roberts wrote that the CFPB structure with a single point of leadership that could only be removed for cause "ha[d] no foothold in history or tradition", and had only been used in four other instances: three modern uses for the United States Office of Special Counsel, the Social Security Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and temporarily for one year during the American Civil War for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. [18] Roberts wrote that the three current uses "are modern and contested. And they do not involve regulatory or enforcement authority comparable to that exercised by the CFPB." [18] Roberts also wrote that the CFPB structure "is also incompatible with the structure of the Constitution, which—with the sole exception of the presidency—scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual." [18] In support of this position, Roberts also cited the decision of 1789. [17]

The Court also held that the statutes around the director of the CFPB was severable from the rest of the statute establishing the agency, and thus "[t]he agency may therefore continue to operate, but its director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the president at will." [18] The Court vacated the lower court's judgement and remanded the case for review. [19] The dissenting justices concurred on the matter of severability.

Concurrence and dissent

Justice Thomas wrote a partial concurrence joined by Justice Gorsuch, adding that he believed that Humphrey's Executor should be overturned and all "for cause" terminations positions should be considered unconstitutional. Thomas also wrote that he believed there was no need to resolve the severability matter for the case at hand. [14]

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. [20] The Kagan dissent struck a functionalist tone in contrast with the formalism apparent in the Court's opinion. [21] Kagan challenged the argument presented by the majority stating that "[n]owhere does the text [of the Constitution] say anything about the president's power to remove subordinate officials at will." [18] She also contested the majority's characterization of Article II's Take Care Clause as conferring power to the president. Kagan wrote that to the extent the clause gives the president any power—instead of merely conferring a duty upon them—it is only power to ensure that "the laws are faithfully executed." [22] Kagan also challenged Roberts' characterization of the Decision of 1789, stating that "[t]he best view is that the First Congress 'was deeply divided' on the president's removal power, and 'never squarely addressed' the central issue here." [23] Finally, she questioned why it was relevant that the head of the CFPB was an independent director and not an independent commission, as independent commissions theoretically cause a higher diffusion of executive power than a single director does.

Commentary and impact

Seila Law has been the subject of numerous law review articles. [24] Its use of precedent has perplexed legal scholars. [25] Important questions raised by commentators post-Seila include: [21]

Professor Edward Cantu wrote that "[c]onsistent with how the Court has always approached separation-of-powers decisions, Seila should be viewed not as anti-pragmatic formalism but as pragmatic posturing." [25] In contrast, Professor Lisa Schultz Bressman believed that Seila Law "offered a vision of separation of powers" that finally explained Chief Justice Roberts' administrative law jurisprudence. Further, she called the case's new removal test "remarkable both because it changes the law and because of how it changes the law: it lets the structure of the agency determine the degree of presidential control over its principal officers." [26]

The majority opinion has also been written about as an example of a case based on the unitary executive theory. [15] Thomas A. Barnico, a professor at Boston College Law School, noted that the case raised federalism issues. In particular, he suggested that the CFPB's power to pre-empt state legislation presented special concerns regarding accountability for its leadership. [27]

Subsequent to the decision, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Fifth Circuit's decision in Collins v. Mnuchin related to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that had been established with the same single-administrator position, dismissable only for cause, as the CFPB. [28] In June 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision in light of Seila Law that the FHFA directorship position's termination allowance was unconstitutional but otherwise left the FHFA in place. [29]

See also

Related Research Articles

In the United States government, independent agencies are agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments and the Executive Office of the President. In a narrower sense, the term refers only to those independent agencies that, while considered part of the executive branch, have regulatory or rulemaking authority and are insulated from presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited.

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), was a United States Supreme Court decision ruling that the President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body. It was distinguished in 1935 by Humphrey's Executor v. United States. However, in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court interpreted Myers as establishing that the President generally has unencumbered removal power. Myers was the first Supreme Court case to address the president's removal powers.

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision that determined the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional. Morrison also set important precedent determining the scope of Congress's ability to encumber the President's authority to remove Officers of the United States from office. In Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020), the Supreme Court distinguished Morrison as a narrow exception applying only to inferior officers.

The Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials. Although the Senate must confirm certain principal officers, Congress may by law invest the appointment of "inferior" officers to the President alone, or to courts of law or heads of departments.

Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), was a Supreme Court of the United States case decided regarding whether the United States President has the power to remove executive officials of a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial administrative body for reasons other than what is allowed by Congress. The Court held that the President did not have this power. However, Humphrey's has been distinguished by Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In Seila, Chief Justice John Roberts described Humphrey's as holding that Congress may occasionally create independent agencies with removal only for cause if such agencies share the characteristics of the FTC in 1935.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loretta Preska</span> American judge (born 1949)

Loretta A. Preska is an American lawyer who serves as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Born in Albany, Preska received law degrees from Fordham University School of Law and New York University School of Law. She practiced law in New York City from 1973 to 1992 at the law firms of Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Hertzog, Calamari & Gleason. President George H. W. Bush appointed her to the district bench in 1992. She served as chief judge of the court for a seven-year term from 2009 to 2016, and took senior status in 2017. President George W. Bush nominated Preska to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008, but the Senate did not act on the nomination.

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">Federal Housing Finance Agency</span> U.S. federal agency

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is an independent federal agency in the United States created as the successor regulatory agency of the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development government-sponsored enterprise mission team, absorbing the powers and regulatory authority of both entities, with expanded legal and regulatory authority, including the ability to place government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) into receivership or conservatorship.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010), was a 5–4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that laws enabling inferior officers of the United States to be insulated from the Presidential removal authority with two levels of "for cause" removal violated Article Two of the United States Constitution.

<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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2013</span> Bill to restructure the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

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.

Leandra English is an American political advisor serving as an advisor to the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. She formerly was the Deputy Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) from 2017 until her resignation in 2018. She was the plaintiff in the lawsuit English v. Trump, in which she unsuccessfully sought to have herself acknowledged as Acting Director of the CFPB.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Silberman (government administrator)</span> American government official

David M. Silberman is an American government administrator who served as the associate director for Research, Markets, and Regulation at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Silberman also previously served as the agency's Acting Deputy Director, until the appointment of Leandra English to the office.

<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).

<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.

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.

The Decision of 1789 refers to a month-long constitutional debate that occurred during the first session of the United States House of Representatives as to whether Article Two of the United States Constitution granted the president the power to remove officers of the United States at will. It has been called "the first significant legislative construction of the Constitution". The debate centered around "a bill that would create a Department of Foreign Affairs"—the precursor to the Department of State—and which branch of government would have the power to remove officers from that department.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism.

References

Sources

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Totenberg, Nina (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court Gives President Power To Fire Key Independent Agency Chief". NPR . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
  2. ↑ 12 U.S.C.   § 5491(c)(3)
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Trump's Power to Fire Consumer Watchdog". The New York Times . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
  4. ↑ Garcia, Rebecca (2019). "Consumer News: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Reverses Course". Loyola Consumer Law Review. 32 (1): 194. Archived from the original on June 22, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020– via HeinOnline.
  5. ↑ Harvey, Hosea H. (2019). "Constitutionalizing Consumer Financial Protection: The Case for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". Minnesota Law Review . 103 (6): 2432–33. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved September 23, 2020– via HeinOnline.
  6. ↑ Mashaw, Seila (August 27, 2020). "Of Angels, Pins, and For-Cause Removal: A Requiem for the Passive Virtues". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  7. ↑ DiResta, Anthony E.; Haller, David L. (March 20, 2020). "Supreme Court Wrestles with Constitutional Challenge to the CFPB". Holland & Knight. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020.
  8. ↑ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, ___F_____ ( United States District Court for the Central District of California August 25, 2017).
  9. ↑ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 923F.3d680 ( 9th Cir. May 6, 2019).
  10. ↑ PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881F.3d75 ( D.C. Cir. January 31, 2018).
  11. ↑ Adler, Jonathan H. (October 18, 2019). "Is the CFPB Unconstitutional? We'll Soon Find Out". The Volokh Conspiracy . Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  12. ↑ "Case File: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". SCOTUSblog . Archived from the original on June 16, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2199–200.
  14. 1 2 Adler, Jonathan (June 29, 2020). "With Chief in Charge, SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law and Eliminates CFPB Independence". Reason . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
  15. 1 2 Sitaraman, Ganesh (2020). "The Political Economy of the Removal Power". Harvard Law Review. 134: 381.
  16. 1 2 Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2200.
  17. 1 2 Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2201.
  18. 1 2 3 4 5 Mangan, Dan; Higgens, Tucker (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing but backs president's ability to fire director". CNBC . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
  19. ↑ Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2209.
  20. ↑ Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2236 (Kagan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
  21. 1 2 Duncheon, Timothy G.; L. Revesz, Richard (August 27, 2020). "Seila Law as an Ex Post, Static Conception of Separation of Powers". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  22. ↑ Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2228 (Kagan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
  23. ↑ Seila, 140 S. Ct. at 2230 (Kagan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Saikrishna Prakash, New Light on the Decision of 1789, 91 CORNELL L. REV. 1021, 1072 (2006)).
  24. ↑ "Seila Law and the Roberts Court". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. August 27, 2020. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  25. 1 2 Cantu, Edward (2021). "Seila Law as Separation-of-Powers Posturing". Georgetown Law Journal. 110: 1–48.
  26. ↑ Bressman, Seila (August 27, 2020). "What Seila Law Says About Chief Justice Roberts' View of the Administrative State". The University of Chicago Law Review Online. Retrieved November 30, 2021.
  27. ↑ Barnico, Thomas E. (April 13, 2020). "Seila Law LLC v. CFPB: "Humphrey's Pre-emptor"?". Notice & Comment (Yale Journal on Regulation). Archived from the original on April 23, 2020. Retrieved June 20, 2020.
  28. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court to Weigh Shareholder Suit Over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac". Reuters. July 9, 2020. Archived from the original on July 11, 2020. Retrieved July 9, 2020– via U.S. News & World Report.
  29. ↑ "U.S. Supreme Court bolsters presidential power over housing finance agency". CNBC . June 23, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.