The government has appealed the decision against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | So Good News

Weekly requests

The Petitions of the Week section shows a selection of cert requests recently in the Supreme Court. A list of all the complaints we see is available Here.

For the second time in more than three years, the Supreme Court may determine the fate of the federal watchdog that seeks to protect consumers in the financial sector.

Three levels ago Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the justices ruled by a vote of 5-4 that Congress violated the separation of powers when it placed the CFPB under the authority of a single director who is removed by the president only for cause, as opposed to will. The court, however, declined to block the entire agency for the error, instead vacating the offer in its entirety. This week, we present cert petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether the organization is unconstitutional for another reason: its way of raising money.

The views of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., CFPB was established by Congress after the Great Recession as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Congress created the agency to consolidate responsibilities spread across multiple agencies to enact consumer protection laws and provide new regulations to regulate the predatory industry.

To protect the agency from future political demands, Congress made two major decisions about its structure.

First, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the head of the CFPB to serve for five years after being appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and – until Seila Law – prohibited the president from firing the leader except for “incompetence, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office.” Second, the act puts the agency’s money under the control of the Federal Reserve. Each year, the Fed can submit a budget request by the head of the CFPB for up to 12% of the Fed’s operating expenses. Although the director must comply with an annual audit by the comptroller and make regular reports to other congressional committees, the law protects the agency from oversight by the House and Senate oversight committees.

Two financial institutions sued the CFPB after the agency issued a ban on payday lenders. The final argument of the organizations was that the law should not apply to them because it was issued by an organization that has an illegal money laundering policy.

The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected the challenge to the law. However, it acknowledged that the CFPB is unconstitutionally funded. The Fed’s power to establish an independent agency’s budget based on annual appropriations by Congress and protected from review by appropriations committees, the Fifth Circuit ruled, violates Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which requires “Financials” for any “Finance”. … drawn from the Treasury. “Considering that the way to get money is inseparable from the overall structure of the organization, the court banned the law of the payday loan.

In Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, the CFPB and its current director, Rohit Chopra, have asked the justices to reverse the 5th Circuit’s decision. The act of Congress authorizing the Fed to fund the agency until interest rates are met, the administration argues, is especially so considering other agencies that Congress has funded using similar methods. If the judges disagree, the government insists that some parts of the funding process can be ineffective without destroying the CFPB as a whole – mainly because of the Dodd-Frank Act, as the court said. Seila Lawit has a separation clause.

The government has asked the court to hear the dispute early next year and issue a decision by June.

Below is a list of requests made this week:

Alaska v. Haaland
22-401
Story: The federal Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which sought to protect the powers of the Alaska State Police over wildlife, gives all agencies the power to override state hunting laws.

Vorley v. United States
22-402
Story: (1) Whether the “conspiracy or skill to commit fraud” under the wire fraud statute, 18 USC § 1343, includes “false pretense,” or whether the statute requires express terms that are false or misleading; and (2) whether a district court can cure a violation of the Speedy Trial Act by finding later that the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the defendant and the public for a speedy trial, or whether the court must make ends of justice available at the time it grants a continuance.

Harness v. Watson
22-412
Story: Whether any change to a law enacted with the unlawful purpose of discrimination, no matter how small the change was and regardless of historical background, clears the 14th Amendment if the party opposing the law can prove that the change was motivated by discrimination.

Metzger v. UA Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund
22-417
Story: Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s anti-cutback law, 29 USC 1054(g), prohibits trustees and sponsors of other plans from withholding the benefits of retirees by reinterpreting a plan to restrict work previously permitted in retirement, thereby . achieve through policy translation what they could not do through policy reform.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited
22-448
Story: Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute appropriating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 USC § 5497, violates the provision of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and vacated the statute promulgated at the time the Bureau received such appropriations.