CFPB Constitutional, per Court (Feb. 2)

Update 247: CFPB Constitutional, per Court;

Dissent More Hysterical than Historical 

This Wednesday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia voted 7-3 to uphold the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPB)’s governance structure.

The Dodd-Frank Act gave CFPB have a single, independent Director not subject to removal except for cause and the court majority approved that this week. What do this ruling, its appeal, and other pending court cases mean for the CFPB?

Following the Update is an appeal for candidates for an admin/policy position open at 20/20 Vision.

Good weekends, all.

Best,

Dana

 

_______________________________________

 

For the Dissent

The CFPB’s Directorship and funding structure has been a target for banking interests and Republicans in Congress.  For some, the CFPB’s single directorship and the limits on the President’s ability to remove this director without evidence of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance” is unconstitutional.  The petitioners argued that, while this single directorship was intended to insulate the bureau from political influence, in reality it gives the Director undue power, undermining the President’s Article II powers and violating the Constitution on separation of powers grounds.

So said Judge Brett Kavanaugh (who issued a dissent here) in the District Court’s October 2016 opinion that “because the Director alone heads the agency without Presidential supervision, and in light of the CFPB’s broad authority over the U.S. economy, the Director enjoys significantly more unilateral power than any single member of any other independent agency.

 

Was This Lawsuit Just Ideological?

The opinions on Wednesday’s en banc Appeals Court ruling revealed the sharp ideological underpinnings of the argument against CFPB’s directorship structure.  Citing historical precedent, the majority opinion found that “the CFPB is neither distinctive nor novel in any respect that call into constitutionality into question.”

All three dissenting judges, however, argued that the CFPB’s single-director structure and self-contained funding mechanism violates the Constitution.  Judges Kavanagh and Henderson took especially strident tones.  Kavanaugh echoed the sentiment of his 2016 opinion, arguing that ”we should invalidate and sever the for-cause removal provision and hold that the Director of the CFPB may be supervised, directed, and removed at will by the President.”

Otherwise, he contended, the Bureau would amount to a “fourth branch of government” that would pose a threat to individual liberty and threaten tyranny. Henderson took the argument a step further and called for the CFPB to be disbanded entirely on the grounds that “consent of the governed is a sham if an administrative agency, by design, does not meaningfully answer for its policies to either of the elected branches.”

These arguments are clearly disproportionate and ideologically motivated.  The CFPB’s size and impact hardly amounts to the threat suggested by hysterical concerns about “tyranny,” a word that appears in the second sentence of Kavanaugh dissent.  Budget outlays for all federal regulatory bodies in 2016 were over $63 billion.  That same year, the CFPB’s operating budget maxed out at $631.7 million.  This case was brought without any real interest in the question of directorship; it was an ideological broadside, an especially if not shamefully cynical and legally frivolous one at that.

 

Theory With Other Agencies

The majority opinion addresses one of the more important aspects of this debate: the constitutionality of independent agencies.  The opinion charges that the PHH argument would amount to a  “wholesale attack on independent agencies — whether collectively or individually led — that, if accepted, would broadly transform modern government.”

Revealing an ideological aversion to regulatory institutions, the dissenters insist that the agency lacks the consent of the governed, even though Congress still has veto power over the nominee for CFPB and the President holds authority over the Director.  If the dissents were the authority, the courts would reverse the 80-year precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where the Supreme Court upheld the authority of Congress to create a regulatory bureau with an independent Director.

The independent Director structure is not unique among agencies. The CFPB’s independent funding mechanism and single directorship was modeled after the OCC (although direct removal at the OCC is somewhat different).  The FHFA and SSA operate with the same single-director structure and removal restrictions.

If the claim that the CFPB operates outside of checks and balances were to prevail, it would amount for a fundamental upheaval to the federal regulatory structure and would change the entire power structure that has been held up by Congress and the Courts for years.  The President would have the authority to remove agency heads at will, subjecting independent agencies to the political whims of the executive.

 

What Are The Merits?

Setting aside the ideological entrenchments, this case was also argued and ruled on for its merits. As anyone familiar with the “efficiency” of congress or the bureaucracy of a board of directors can attest, the more decision makers whose consent is needed to take action the less action will be taken. This applies to agencies in that, with a board of governors or directors the agency will simply move slower in its regulatory outreach. This is both ideologically aligned with small government conservatives, and can be inferred from the constitution.

Our U.S government was designed with many checkpoints and counterbalances on any branch or agency’s authority in order to slow the pace of government as well as check individual power.

But the founding fathers did choose to set the executive branch apart in one respect.

The President was given swift and agile authority to enforce the laws passed by congress. There are checks along the way, but the President and the agencies he creates are constitutionally designed to be able to move quickly and independently of congressional consent in day to day operations.

 

What Comes Next? 

It is unclear whether the Supreme Court will take up an appeal of this decision.  The Court of Appeals revoked the penalties issued against the petitioner,  PHH, so the company will likely no longer have standing and the Trump administration may not want to challenge the ruling.

House Financial Services Committee Chair Jeb Hensarling expressed hope that the Supreme Court would review the ruling.  OMB Director Mick Mulvaney and Trump’s forthcoming CFPB director nominee, are still permitted to unwind the agency from within.  This was just the first of three rulings on independent agencies.

Watch for an upcoming case (English v Trump) that might strip Mulvaney of his OMB Directorship accelerating the timetable for replacing director Cordray on a permanent basis.

27 thoughts on “CFPB Constitutional, per Court (Feb. 2)”

  1. I believe that is among the such a lot significant information for me.
    And i am satisfied reading your article. But want
    to commentary on some basic things, The website taste is perfect, the articles is really great : D.
    Good process, cheers asmr 0mniartist

  2. I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here.
    The sketch is tasteful, your authored material stylish.
    nonetheless, you command get got an edginess over that you wish be
    delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again as exactly
    the same nearly a lot often inside case you shield this hike.

  3. Hi! Would you mind if I share your blog with
    my zynga group? There’s a lot of folks that I think would
    really appreciate your content. Please let me
    know. Many thanks

  4. Terrific work! This is the type of info that should be shared around the web.

    Shame on Google for no longer positioning this publish upper!

    Come on over and seek advice from my web site . Thanks =)

  5. Right here is the right webpage for anyone who hopes
    to understand this topic. You realize so much its almost
    hard to argue with you (not that I actually
    would want to…HaHa). You certainly put a new spin on a topic which has been discussed for years.
    Great stuff, just great!

  6. I’ve read several good stuff here. Certainly worth bookmarking for
    revisiting. I surprise how so much effort you set to create such a excellent
    informative web site.

  7. An outstanding share! I have just forwarded
    this onto a co-worker who had been conducting a little research on this.
    And he actually bought me dinner because I stumbled upon it for him…
    lol. So let me reword this…. Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanks for
    spending time to talk about this issue here on your site.

  8. scoliosis
    You are so cool! I do not think I’ve truly read through
    something like this before. So nice to find someone with some original thoughts on this subject.
    Really.. many thanks for starting this up. This site
    is something that’s needed on the web, someone with a bit of originality!
    scoliosis

  9. scoliosis
    hi!,I really like your writing so much! share we keep in touch more about your post on AOL?
    I need an expert on this house to unravel
    my problem. May be that’s you! Having a look forward to see you.
    scoliosis

  10. scoliosis
    Hello, i think that i saw you visited my blog thus i came
    to go back the choose?.I’m trying to to find things
    to improve my site!I assume its adequate to use some of
    your concepts!! scoliosis

  11. Having read this I thought it was rather enlightening.
    I appreciate you finding the time and energy to put this informative article together.

    I once again find myself personally spending way
    too much time both reading and commenting. But so what, it was still worth it!

  12. I was suggested this web site by means of my cousin. I’m
    now not positive whether or not this submit is written by way of him as nobody else understand such distinct about my trouble.

    You are incredible! Thanks!

  13. I like the helpful info you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your weblog and test once
    more here frequently. I am reasonably sure I’ll be informed many new stuff
    right here! Good luck for the next!

  14. Oh my goodness! Incredible article dude! Thanks, However I am going through issues with your RSS.
    I don’t understand why I cannot subscribe to it. Is there anybody else having similar
    RSS problems? Anyone that knows the solution will you kindly respond?

    Thanks!!

  15. I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your site?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say. But maybe you
    could a little more in the way of content so people could connect
    with it better. Youve got an awful lot of text for only having 1 or two images.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  16. I do not know whether it’s just me or if everyone else experiencing issues with your website.
    It seems like some of the written text in your posts are
    running off the screen. Can somebody else please provide
    feedback and let me know if this is happening to them too?

    This might be a issue with my browser because I’ve had this happen before.
    Cheers

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *