Supreme Court rules Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding structure is legal

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: CNBC

POLITICS
Supreme Court rules Consumer Financial Protection Bureau funding structure is legal
PUBLISHED THU, MAY 16 2024 * 10:13 AM EDT * UPDATED 1 MIN AGO

Kevin Breuninger
@KEVINWILLIAMB https://twitter.com/KEVINWILLIAMB

KEY POINTS
* The Supreme Court ruled that the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is legal.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is legal.

The court rejected an argument that the CFPB's funding method violated the U.S. Constitution's Appropriations Clause because Congress had not authorized money for the agency.

This is breaking news. Please check back for updates.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/16/supreme-court-rules-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-funding-structure-is-legal.html

---

Read all about it:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf

-- -- -- -- -- --

Original text, for the originalists in the audience:

Supreme Court upholds consumer protection agency's funding structure, rejecting a conservative attack
https://www.kaaltv.com/news/business-news/supreme-court-upholds-consumer-protection-agencys-funding-structure-rejecting-a-conservative-attack/

By The Associated Press
Updated: 2 minutes ago
Published: May 16, 2024 - 10:08 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court upholds consumer protection agency's funding structure, rejecting a conservative attack.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

[brooklynite]

1. 7-2 in favor with Thomas in the majority.

[onenote]

6. Alito and Gorsuch dissenting.

Thomas wrote opinion, joined by Roberts, Kagan, Sotomayor, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Kagan also wrote a separate concurring opinion that was joined by Barrett, Kavanaugh and Sotomayor. And Jackson filed her own separate concurring opinion.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. The SC makes strange bedfellows.

Thanks for writing, and good morning.

[peppertree]

9. I for one doubt very much that Thomass wrote the opinion (a clerk, no doubt).

Thomass couldn't write a limerick.

[onenote]

17. Clerks write the first draft of almost all opinions.

[peppertree]

21. Luckily for Thomass

Since I doubt he even reads them.

[Renew Deal]

29. Alito is truly the worst.

I wonder if Bush would nominate him again knowing what he knows.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Clarence is covering his tracks. Don't be fooled. /nt

[sinkingfeeling]

3. That's a surprise.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. It IS a surprise, and a very welcome one. I am relieved! nt

[pecosbob]

5. So they can regulate credit card fees after all.

Rs want to destroy the government's ability to govern.

[Farmer-Rick]

8. Hmmm, the Supremes protecting

Consumers? Weird ruling, they hate American democracy, women, minorities, non Christians and poorer people; generally anyone who doesn't worship their version of a super daddy in the sky.

What are they up to?

[dchill]

13. Means something really shitty is coming down the pipe.

[orangecrush]

16. This

[rubbersole]

14. Probably softening their rep before an upcoming nasty ruling.

[Traurigkeit]

18. letting TSF walk. 6 Justices walking dead

[usaf-vet]

24. This is how they think. We have taken away Roe. Now, we give you consumer protection. That should settle .....

.... all the Roe bitching and whining.

[BlueKota]

26. Trying to give themselves cover

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. See: Supreme Court: Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 16

Thu May 16, 2024: Supreme Court: Announcement of opinions for Thursday, May 16

{snip}

Amy Howe
Mod
10:03 AM

{snip}

We now have the decision in CFPB v. Community Financial.

It is by Justice Thomas, and the vote is 7-2. Alito dissents, joined by Gorsuch.

The court holds that the funding mechanism for the CFPB does comply with the appropriations clause.

{snip}

Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:08 AM
And here's CFPB

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf

Amy Howe
Mod
10:09 AM

The challengers argued that this funding mechanism violated the appropriations clause, which provides that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." But the majority rejects this argument, explaining that "an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes." "The statute that provides the Bureau's funding meets these requirements," the majority writes.

Kagan has a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. She says that she joins the court's opinion in full and acknowledges that the funding scheme, "if transplanted back to the late-18th century, would have fit right in," but also notes that "[a]ll the flexibility and diversity evident in the founding period has thus continued unabated, making it even more obvious that the CFPB's funding accords with the Constitution."

{snip}

Amy Howe
Mod
10:13 AM
Jackson has her own concurring opinion -- she would have relied only on the idea that the law that Congress passed meets the requirement of the appropriations clause.

Yes, that is all for today

Alito's dissent, joined by Gorsuch, complains that "today's decision turns the Appropriations Clause into a minor vestige."

In Alito's view, the case "turns on a simple question: Is the CFPB financially accountable to Congress in the way the Appropriations Clause demands? History tells us it is not."

[JustAnotherGen]

11. I'll take the win

I remember 2007-2008 too clearly to not respect the win.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. Supreme Court rejects broad challenge to consumer watchdog CFPB

Supreme Court rejects broad challenge to consumer watchdog CFPB
The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court to reject an appeals court decision that cast doubt on Congress’s authority to decide how to fund an agency.

By Ann E. Marimow and Justin Jouvenal
Updated May 16, 2024 at 10:43 a.m. EDT | Published May 16, 2024 at 10:14 a.m. EDT

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a broad challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, reversing a lower-court ruling that would have undermined the watchdog agency created by Congress 12 years ago.

The CFPB case is one of several the Supreme Court heard this term that challenge the power of federal agencies, long a target of conservatives concerned about regulation and government bureaucrats whom they see as unaccountable to the public. In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court upheld as constitutional the bureau’s funding mechanism — which is based on profits from the Federal Reserve, rather than an annual appropriation.

Two other conservative justices, Neil M. Gorsuch and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented, saying the ruling would allow for unlimited spending by the agency without oversight from Congress. ... “There is apparently nothing wrong with a law that empowers the Executive to draw as much money as it wants from any identified source for any permissible purpose until the end of time,” Alito wrote in his dissent.

The case involved a decision by the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that said the funding mechanism Congress adopted to ensure the CFPB’s independence violated the Constitution’s command requiring congressional appropriation of money. The decision, by panel of three judges nominated by President Donald Trump, said the agency’s insulation from congressional committees doubled the violation.

{snip}

The case is Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

By Ann Marimow
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2005, and has spent a decade writing about legal affairs and the federal judiciary. She previously covered state government and politics in California, New Hampshire and Maryland. Twitter https://twitter.com/amarimow

By Justin Jouvenal
Justin Jouvenal covers the Supreme Court. He previously covered policing and the courts locally and nationally. He joined The Post in 2009. Twitter https://twitter.com/jjouvenal

[progressoid]

15. Gotta say I was dreading this decision.

Kind of surprised it wasn't a closer ruling.

[karin_sj]

19. What???!!!

I read the article to see how the justices voted and was totally shocked to see this:

"Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the 7-2 majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson."

Never thought I'd see him do anything to protect consumers, or anyone else other than his corporate buddies...

[Turbineguy]

20. GOP has a sad.

[Martin68]

22. Finally. MAGAts have been trying to destroy it since Obama created it under Elizabeth Warren's guidance.

The love corporations so much more than citizens.

[elleng]

23. Good. Long time waiting for such.

[BaronChocula]

25. the gop klux klan is still gunning for Obama's legacy

And failing once again.

[GreenWave]

27. Sort of like what it says in the constitution,

promote the general Welfare,

[Miguelito Loveless]

28. This is the occasional bone they throw us

before they try and hand the presidency to Trump.