Rule of Law

RELEASE: CFPB Decision is Victory for Consumers, Backed by Constitutional Text and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in CFPB v. CFSA, a case in which the Court was considering whether Congress’s chosen method of funding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Today’s decision upholding the funding structure of the CFPB is a big win for consumers, allowing the agency to continue fighting for everyday Americans just as Congress intended.

This victory is not surprising: advocates for predatory lenders challenging the Bureau failed to provide a coherent explanation of why its funding violated the Constitution, nor could they square their claims with the text or history of the Appropriations Clause, or with legislation dating to the founding. In fact, as our brief on behalf of historians and constitutional scholars emphasized, the nation’s very first federal agency was funded much like the CFPB. Justice Thomas’s opinion for the Court relied on this and similar examples we cited in upholding the Bureau’s funding.

The Court’s decision is in keeping with the text and history of the Appropriations Clause. Ultimately, that Clause was adopted to give Congress a check on executive branch spending, not to let judges dictate how Congress exercises that power. By upholding the balance of power the Framers established—and rightly rejecting the absurd arguments against the CFPB—the Supreme Court delivered a win for the separation of powers and rejected an attempt to aggrandize the power of the courts.

##

Resources:

Case page in CFPB v. CFSA: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-finance-services-association-of-america/

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
July 2, 2024

RADIO/PODCAST (Bloomberg): Elizabeth Wydra Discusses Presidential Immunity Ruling

Bloomberg
Elizabeth Wydra, Constitutional Accountability Center President & Supreme Court Litigator, discusses the latest developments in...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Joe Mathieu, Kailey Leinz
Rule of Law
July 2, 2024

‘Originalism is a dead letter’: Supreme Court majority accused of abandoning legal principles in Trump immunity ruling

NBC News
Critics on the left and the right said the decision finding absolute immunity for certain...
By: Smita Ghosh, Lawrence Hurley
Rule of Law
 

Garland v. VanDerStok

In Garland v. VanDerStok, the Supreme Court is considering whether weapon parts kits and incomplete frames and receivers should be regulated as “firearms” under the Gun Control Act.
Rule of Law
July 1, 2024

RELEASE: High Court’s Decision on Presidential Immunity Is Too Little and Too Late to Ensure the Framers’ Vision of Presidential Accountability

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States,...
By: Praveen Fernandes, Smita Ghosh
Rule of Law
July 30, 2024

She cemented a conservative Supreme Court, but a ‘cautious’ Justice Barrett sometimes resists the far-right flank

NBC News
In several recent cases, the Trump appointee has written opinions criticizing conservative colleagues and has...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Lawrence Hurley
Rule of Law
June 28, 2024

RELEASE: In Flagrant Judicial Power Grab, Court Discards Chevron Doctrine, Undermining Congress and Agencies, and Threatening Government Programs that Protect Americans

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen