On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America (the CFSA case). As many commentators suggested, the court upheld the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding mechanism. The case centered around the constitutionality of the CFPB's funding structure, which is unique among federal financial regulatory agencies. Unlike most agencies that receive their budget through the annual congressional appropriations process (most cabinet departments) or though fees paid by the entities that it supervises (FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve Board), the CFPB is funded directly by a sub-budget of the Federal Reserve Board. Advocates that pressed for the creation of the CFPB in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis designed its funding mechanism to insulate the agency from political pressure and provide it with a stable funding source to carry out its regulatory duties. Thus, the CFPB is given discretion to request appropriations of "up to" 12% of the Federal Reserve Board's operating budget. The primary source of funding for the Federal Reserve Board is income from the securities that it owns and fees from banking operations—check clearing, funds transfers and clearinghouse activities.

While the 7-2 outcome may not shock constitutional scholars, the fact that the case made its way to the court may come as a surprise. This case was not really about nuances of constitutional appropriations but the fundamental mission of an agency that is tasked with making rules and then enforcing those rules. Unlike the traditional bank regulators that consider the safety, soundness, and overall health of the entities they supervise, the CFPB's mission is that of an enforcer—a "check" on those that are regulated. At various times the CFPB has clearly articulated its mission to broadly define its powers and use general grants of power to enforce highly-specific rulemaking policies. Whether this is "good" or "bad" depends on one's political views. Whether purposeful or not, the way the CFPB has expanded its power and the defining of its core mission has served to divide politics—creating a federal agency surrounded by controversy that is not seen with other prudential financial regulators.