USApedia

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (view source)

Revision as of 00:20, 26 January 2025

4 bytes removed ,  26 January
m
Text replacement - "American Civil War" to "American Civil War"
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "American Civil War" to "American Civil War")
Line 165: Line 165:
The Court issued its decision on June 29, 2020. 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, vacating the lower court judgement and remanding the case for review. The Court recognized that the statutes around the director of the CFPB was [[Severability|severable]] from the rest of the statute establishing the agency, and thus "The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html | title = Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing but backs president's ability to fire director | first1 = Dan | last1 = Mangan | first2 = Tucker | last2 = Higgens | date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = June 29, 2020 | work = [[CNBC]] | archive-date = June 29, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200629150200/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html | url-status = live }}</ref>
The Court issued its decision on June 29, 2020. 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, vacating the lower court judgement and remanding the case for review. The Court recognized that the statutes around the director of the CFPB was [[Severability|severable]] from the rest of the statute establishing the agency, and thus "The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will."<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html | title = Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing but backs president's ability to fire director | first1 = Dan | last1 = Mangan | first2 = Tucker | last2 = Higgens | date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = June 29, 2020 | work = [[CNBC]] | archive-date = June 29, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200629150200/https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-consumer-regulator-standing-but-backs-presidents-ability-to-fire-director.html | url-status = live }}</ref>


Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote the majority opinion joined by conservative Justices [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Samuel Alito]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], and [[Brett Kavanaugh]]. Roberts wrote that the CFPB structure with a single point of leadership that could only be removed for cause "has no foothold in history or tradition", and has only been used in four other instances: three current 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]].<ref name="cnbc decision" /> 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."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> 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."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> Roberts referred back to the precedent established by ''Humphrey's Executor'' and ''Morrison'' as a basis for the majority's decision.<ref name="reason decision">{{cite web | url = https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | title = With Chief in Charge, SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law and Eliminates CFPB Independence | first = Jonathan | last = Adler | date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = June 29, 2020 | work = [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] | archive-date = June 29, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200629232919/https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | url-status = live }}</ref>
Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote the majority opinion joined by conservative Justices [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Samuel Alito]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], and [[Brett Kavanaugh]]. Roberts wrote that the CFPB structure with a single point of leadership that could only be removed for cause "has no foothold in history or tradition", and has only been used in four other instances: three current 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]].<ref name="cnbc decision" /> 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."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> 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."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> Roberts referred back to the precedent established by ''Humphrey's Executor'' and ''Morrison'' as a basis for the majority's decision.<ref name="reason decision">{{cite web | url = https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | title = With Chief in Charge, SCOTUS Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law and Eliminates CFPB Independence | first = Jonathan | last = Adler | date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = June 29, 2020 | work = [[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] | archive-date = June 29, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200629232919/https://reason.com/2020/06/29/with-chief-in-charge-scotus-strikes-down-louisiana-abortion-law-and-eliminates-cfpb-independence/ | url-status = live }}</ref>


Justice [[Elena Kagan]] wrote the dissent joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[Stephen Breyer]], and [[Sonia Sotomayor]]. Kagan wrote that "Today's decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission—a measure of independence from political pressure."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> Kagan challenged the separation of powers argument presented by the majority: "Nowhere does the text [of the Constitution] say anything about the President's power to remove subordinate officials at will."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> The dissenting Justices did concur on the matter of severability of the remaining structure of the CFPB outside of the director.
Justice [[Elena Kagan]] wrote the dissent joined by Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[Stephen Breyer]], and [[Sonia Sotomayor]]. Kagan wrote that "Today's decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission—a measure of independence from political pressure."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> Kagan challenged the separation of powers argument presented by the majority: "Nowhere does the text [of the Constitution] say anything about the President's power to remove subordinate officials at will."<ref name="cnbc decision" /> The dissenting Justices did concur on the matter of severability of the remaining structure of the CFPB outside of the director.
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/24285’