Justices Will 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 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 asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
'Almost Impossible'?: Squire Challenge to Sanctions Spotlights Difficulty of Getting Off Administration's List
4 minute readDC Judge Rules Russia Not Immune in Ukrainian Arbitration Award Dispute
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Tik Tok’s ‘Blackout Challenge’ Confronts the Limits of CDA Section 230 Immunity
- 2AI and the Evolution of Legal Talent Functions
- 3Morgan Lewis To Acquire Kramer Levin's Paris Office
- 4Advice to Practicing Lawyers About Their Future
- 5Retired Judges Say Newman’s Challenge to Disability Law Should Proceed
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