Posted on Feb 28, 2023
Supreme Court to hear case that threatens existence of consumer protection agency
410
11
4
8
8
0
https://www.npr.org/2023/02/27/ [login to see] /supreme-court-cfpb
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could threaten the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and potentially the status of numerous other federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve.
A panel of three Trump appointees on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the agency's funding is unconstitutional because the CFPB gets its money from the Federal Reserve, which in turn is funded by bank fees.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up a case that could threaten the existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and potentially the status of numerous other federal agencies, including the Federal Reserve.
A panel of three Trump appointees on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last fall that the agency's funding is unconstitutional because the CFPB gets its money from the Federal Reserve, which in turn is funded by bank fees.
Supreme Court to hear case that threatens existence of consumer protection agency
Posted from npr.orgPosted in these groups: 
Supreme Court
Conservative
Supreme Court Conservative
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 4
1
1
0
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
..."A conservative bête noire
Conservatives who have long opposed the modern administrative state have previously challenged laws that declared heads of agencies can only be fired for cause. In recent years, the Supreme Court has agreed and struck down many of those provisions. The court has held that administrative agencies are essentially creatures of the Executive Branch, so the president has to be able to fire at-will and not just for cause.
But while those decisions did change the who, in terms of who runs these agencies, they did not take away the agencies' powers. Now comes a lower court decision that essentially invalidates the whole mission of the CFPB.
The CFPB has been something of a bête noire for some conservatives. It was established by Congress in 2010 after the financial crash; its purpose was to protect consumers from what were seen as predatory practices by financial institutions. The particular rule in this case involves some of the practices of payday lenders.
The CFPB was the brainchild of then White House aide, and now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. She issued a statement Monday noting that lower courts have previously and repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB.
"If the Supreme Court follows more than a century of law and historical precedent," she said, "it will strike down the Fifth Circuit's decision before it throws our financial market and economy into chaos."
The high court will not hear arguments in the case until next term, so a decision is unlikely until 2024."
..."A conservative bête noire
Conservatives who have long opposed the modern administrative state have previously challenged laws that declared heads of agencies can only be fired for cause. In recent years, the Supreme Court has agreed and struck down many of those provisions. The court has held that administrative agencies are essentially creatures of the Executive Branch, so the president has to be able to fire at-will and not just for cause.
But while those decisions did change the who, in terms of who runs these agencies, they did not take away the agencies' powers. Now comes a lower court decision that essentially invalidates the whole mission of the CFPB.
The CFPB has been something of a bête noire for some conservatives. It was established by Congress in 2010 after the financial crash; its purpose was to protect consumers from what were seen as predatory practices by financial institutions. The particular rule in this case involves some of the practices of payday lenders.
The CFPB was the brainchild of then White House aide, and now U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren. She issued a statement Monday noting that lower courts have previously and repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of the CFPB.
"If the Supreme Court follows more than a century of law and historical precedent," she said, "it will strike down the Fifth Circuit's decision before it throws our financial market and economy into chaos."
The high court will not hear arguments in the case until next term, so a decision is unlikely until 2024."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sounds like some/all of these institutions should be private verses federal. But I'm no expert in this matter. Just another citizen.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Elizabeth Warren said, "If the Supreme Court follows more than a century of law and historical precedent," she said, "it will strike down the Fifth Circuit's decision before it throws our financial market and economy into chaos."
She should know, hasn't she been around that long?
She should know, hasn't she been around that long?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google