Corporate Accountability

PHH Says U.S. Hasn’t Made Case for Rehearing by Full D.C. Circuit

By Chris Bruce

PHH Corp. said a federal appeals court in Washington shouldn’t rehear an October ruling that said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership framework violates the Constitution (PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau , D.C. Cir., No. 15-cv-01177, supplemental response 1/27/17 ).

The Jan. 27 filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the government hasn’t made its case for a review by the D.C. Circuit’s full complement of judges.

The October ruling by two judges on a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel said the CFPB’s structure violates the separation of powers, and a recent filing by the government urged the full D.C. Circuit to review that decision.

But the government’s filing doesn’t really confront the panel’s holding, PHH’s lawyers told the court. “The panel applied the governing standard and reached the unavoidable conclusion that the CFPB’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers,” they said. “Although the United States would have preferred that the panel take a (supposedly) different path in reaching that conclusion, it never challenges the panel’s ultimate result.”

The filing came one day after Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) moved to intervene in the PHH case. They said the new administration will try to remove Cordray, or that it will make no effort to defend the CFPB’s status as an independent agency as established by the Dodd-Frank Act.

“Movants now seek to intervene in this litigation because recent events have made it clear that their interests in preserving the leadership structure they voted for may no longer be adequately represented by the new Administration,” Brown and Waters said in their motion.

The lawmakers are represented by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Brian R. Frazelle, and Simon Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington.

PHH is represented by Theodore B. Olson and Helgi C. Walker of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, Mitchel H. Kider, David M. Souders, Sandra B. Vipond, and Michael S. Trabon of Weiner Brodsky Kider in Washington, and Thomas M. Hefferon and William M. Jay of Goodwin Procter in Washington.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2024

QUICK TAKE: Corporate Interests at the Supreme Court, 2023-2024 Term

Conservative supermajority discards precedent, shifts power to judges, and hobbles agency efforts to enforce the...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 24, 2024

The Supreme Court’s War on Working People Just Got a Little Worse

Balls and Strikes
The decision in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney is part of a long tradition of the Supreme Court...
Corporate Accountability
 

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 13, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Disappointing Decision in Starbucks Union Case Fails to Account for History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney,...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
May 30, 2024

Supreme Court gives New Yorkers second shot in escrow interest-payment fight

Courthouse News Service
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Thursday gave New York homeowners another shot at...
By: Smita Ghosh, Kelsey Reichmann