A Symptom of a Broader Issue: Politics vs. Constitutional Law in 'CFPB v. CFSA'
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.
June 07, 2024 at 10:11 AM
9 minute read
Board of ContributorsOn 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.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 12 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
- 2Trade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
- 3Rule of Law: Is Big Law Too Shortsighted?
- 4The Empty Promise of ‘Dubin v. United States’
- 5Weil Partner Exits Raise Questions About Future Firm Leadership
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250