SCOTUS: Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - Agency independence

... at the Supreme Court Tuesday, the court's conservative majority voiced skepticism about the independent agency Congress created to protect consumers from abuse in the financial services industry.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the CFPB enacted new rules to safeguard the mortgage market and protect consumers from abusive and misleading practices involving everything from credit cards to debt relief. The bureau is headed by a single director, appointed by the president for a five-year term, and lodged in the Federal Reserve.

In order to ensure the director's independence, the law bars the president from firing him or her for any reason except malfeasance, inefficiency, or neglect of duty.

It is that independence from presidential firing that is being challenged as unconstitutional by Seila Law — a law firm under CFPB investigation for misleading practices — and the Trump administration. Both the firm and the administration are asking the Supreme Court, if necessary, to strike down a long line of decisions going back almost a century, that uphold the structure of all independent regulatory agencies.
...
At the end of the day, there appeared to be five conservative justices unwilling to recognize that kind of independence for the CFPB, and four liberal justices with an opposite view.

A decision in the case is expected this summer.

Click to expand...

President Donald Trump launched another attack on Jerome Powell Saturday, suggesting he could remove the Federal Reserve Chairman and place him in another role within the central bank.

Speaking to reporters at the White House as part of a briefing on efforts to combat the coronavirus outbreak, Trump once again expressed his displeasure with the Fed and its Chairman, accusing them of "following, not leading" in terms of offering monetary support for the world's biggest economy during the global pandemic.

Trump also said that he had "the right" to fire Powell, but wouldn't do so, instead suggesting he could come the Chairman "into another role" at the Federal Reserve instead.
...

Click to expand...

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.

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.
...

Click to expand...

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear a case that will decide the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The case revolves around the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding mechanism. After the CFPB issued a payday-lending rule in 2017, industry groups challenged the rule in court, arguing in part that the agency’s funding structure–which draws money from the Federal Reserve rather than annual Congressional appropriations–is unconstitutional. Last fall, the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court rejected most of the trade groups’ arguments against the rule but ruled that the CFPB’s funding structure violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause and separation of powers doctrine.

That decision not only overturned the payday-lending rule and put a legal cloud over every action the CFPB has taken since its launch 12 years ago, it also raised questions about a host of other government agencies and programs that are funded outside the annual Congressional appropriations process, legal experts say.
...

Click to expand...

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday ruled the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure is constitutional.
• In a decision that upholds a lower court’s 2020 ruling in favor of the consumer watchdog, the three-judge panel also rejected a ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals last year.
• The decision comes as the Supreme Court in February agreed to hear the Fifth Circuit’s case challenging the CFPB’s funding apparatus.

The Supreme Court is about to rule on America’s most powerful, unaccountable federal agency​