SCOTUS to Hear Major Challenge to Independence of Obama-Era Consumer Bureau
A team from Paul Weiss, led by appellate veteran Kannon Shanmugam, convinced the justices to hear a constitutional challenge to the single-director power scheme at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
October 18, 2019 at 03:38 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court, jumping into a second separation-of-powers case this term, agreed Friday to decide the constitutionality of the single-director structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency long criticized by the business community and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.
The challenge to the independent federal agency created by Congress in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law was brought by California-based Seila Law, which provides legal services to consumers, including assistance with the resolution of consumer debt. Seila Law is represented by Kannon Shanmugam, a partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
The CFPB issued a civil investigative demand seeking information and documents from the law firm in an investigation into whether it violated certain federal laws. Seila objected to the demand, claiming that the agency was unconstitutionally structured. The CFPB petitioned a federal district court for enforcement, which was granted. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the agency's structure did not violate the separation of powers.
In his petition, Shanmugam argued that the CFPB director alone decides what rules to issue, how to enforce the law and what penalties to impose on those who violate the law.
That combination of power concentrated in a single person who can only be removed by the president for cause "raises grave constitutional concerns," Shanmugam wrote. He also told the justices that a decision upholding the CFPB structure "could provide a blueprint for Congress to reshape the executive branch in dramatic fashion."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who formerly sat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has lambasted the single-director power scheme at the consumer bureau. In an unrelated court challenge, he called the director one of the most "powerful" leaders in all of Washington. "Indeed, other than the president, the director of the CFPB is the single most powerful official in the entire United States government, at least when measured in terms of unilateral power," Kavanaugh wrote in one case.
The U.S. Justice Department defended the consumer agency's constitutionality for years. But under the Trump administration, the government abandoned that position and argued that the agency's structure was unconstitutional. The consumer bureau itself recently switched sides, backing Seila Law's challenge.
The court added a second question for argument: If the justices strike down the CFPB's single-director structure as unlawful, can it be severed from the whole of the Dodd-Frank Act? The Justice Department has argued that the remedy in the case "is to sever the provision limiting the president's authority to remove the bureau's director." The Justice Department has urged the court to leave the remainder of the Dodd-Frank law intact.
"Absent the for-cause removal provision, the Dodd-Frank Act and its bureau-related provisions will remain 'fully operative,'" the Justice Department said in its filing at the high court.
Lawyers for the U.S. House of Representatives, lining up against the Trump administration's Justice Department, have urged the high court to uphold the Ninth Circuit ruling. The Supreme Court is expected to appoint a friend-of-the-court to argue in defense of the Ninth Circuit's decision.
Two other petitions attacking single-director agency structures were filed in recent weeks: Collins v. Mnuchin and All-American Check Cashing v. CFPB. An appellate team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, including former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson and Helgi Walker, a leader of the firm's regulatory group, argued earlier that the court should have granted its challenge to the CFPB.
The other case this term raising separation-of-power concerns involves the appointment of members to the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment. The board and the Trump administration argued that the First Circuit erred in deciding that the appointment of the board's members violated the Constitution's appointments clause. That case was argued Oct. 15.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
A Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 5Inside Track: Late-Career In-House Leaders Offer Words to Live by
Who Got The Work
Eleanor M. Lackman of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp has entered an appearance for Canon, the Japanese camera maker, and the Brooklyn Nets in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Sept. 16 in California Central District Court by T-Rex Law on behalf of technology company Phinge Corporation, pursues claims against the defendants for their ongoing use of the 'Netaverse' mark. The suit contends that the defendants' use of the mark in connection with a virtual reality platform will likely create consumer confusion. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, is 2:24-cv-07917, Phinge Corporation v. Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Fox Rothschild partner Glenn S. Grindlinger has entered an appearance for Garage Management Company in a pending lawsuit over alleged wage-and-hour violations. The case was filed Aug. 31 in New York Southern District Court by the Abdul Hassan Law Group on behalf of a manual worker who contends that he was not properly compensated for overtime hours worked. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres, is 1:24-cv-06610, Bailey v. Garage Management Company LLC.
Who Got The Work
Veronica M. Keithley of Stoel Rives has entered an appearance for Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC in a pending environmental lawsuit. The suit, filed Aug. 12 in Washington Western District Court by Kampmeier & Knutsen on behalf of Communities for a Healthy Bay, seeks to declare that the defendant has violated the Clean Water Act by releasing stormwater discharges on Puget Sound and Commencement Bay. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle, is 3:24-cv-05662, Communities for a Healthy Bay v. Husky Terminal and Stevedoring LLC.
Who Got The Work
Caroline Pignatelli of Cooley has entered an appearance for law firm Cooley, partner Matt Hallinan, retired partner Michael Tu and a pair of Cooley associates in a pending fraud lawsuit related to the firm's representation of startup company Carbon IQ and founder Benjamin Cantey. The case, filed Sept. 26 in New Jersey District Court by the DalCortivo Law Offices on behalf of Gould Ventures and member Jason Gould, contends that the defendants deliberately or recklessly concealed critical information from the plaintiffs regarding fraud allegations against Cantey. Gould claims that he would not have accepted a position on Carbon IQ's board of directors or made a 2022 investment in the company if the fraud allegations had been disclosed. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Robert Kirsch, is 3:24-cv-09485, Gould Ventures, LLC et al v. Cooley, LLP et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom have stepped in to represent PDD Holdings, the operator of online marketplaces Pinduoduo and Temu, in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Sept. 30 in New York Eastern District Court by Labaton Keller Sucharow and VanOverbeke, Michaud & Timmony, contends that the defendants concealed information that rendered the growth of PDD unsustainable and posed substantial risks to PDD’s business, including merchant policies that made it unprofitable for vendors to do business on PDD platforms; malware issues on PDD applications; and PDD’s failure to implement effective compliance systems. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-06881, Macomb County Retiree Health Care Fund v. Pdd Holdings Inc. et al.
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