Posted on 05/16/2024 11:37:22 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure used to fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency tasked with enforcing consumer finance laws. By a vote of 7-2, the justices reversed a decision by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, which had ruled that the agency’s funding violates the Constitution because it comes from the Federal Reserve rather than through the congressional appropriations process.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority, in a decision that relied heavily on both the text of the Constitution and early English and U.S. history.
Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. He offered a dueling interpretation of history that he suggested, leads to the conclusion that the CFPB’s funding scheme “blatantly attempts to circumvent the Constitution.”
The case was one of several on the court’s docket this term involving the division of authority between the three branches of government, as well as the power of administrative agencies. It began as a challenge by two industry groups to a “payday lending” rule that the agency issued in 2017. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected their argument that the rule violated the federal laws governing administrative agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
Give a government agency an inch and they will control your life forever.
The agency itself was not in dispute here. The case specifically involved the funding mechanism for the CFPB. Justice Thomas decided — correctly, in my view — that using Federal Reserve fees to fund the CFPB is perfectly legitimate because that’s how Congress set it up.
Just because Congress set up the funding that way does not mean it is constitutional. SCOTUS determines the constitutionality of Congressional laws. Congress has done lots of stupid, blatantly unconstitutional things throughout its history.
In other words, the CFPB's funding structure is legal because Congress said so. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. This is a narrow ruling about a specific point of law.
How is this any different than Congress legislating a funding mechanism for Federal lands protection through the U.S. Dept. of the Interior -- using grazing fees, oil/gas drilling royalties, or visitor fees at national parks as the source of the funds?
Sometimes Thomas is far too trusting of government, and overlooks it's tendency to run roughshod over the people. Alito's dissent is worth reading.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-448_o7jp.pdf (Dissent starts at page 35)
No. That's not true.
The underlying case was a challenge to a rule promulgated by the CFPB, and the challenge was that the CFPB was not legal and, therefore, the rule should be overturned.
There was another case in the same circuit that had the same challenge.
The court decision basically remanded the case back and found in favor of the CFPB on the question of the legality of the CFPB.
It's not quite that simple.
The CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve, and the US Congress has no control over the Fed or its funding. I believe the CFPB is the only government agency funded by the fed and with this arrangement.
That was the primary challenge the CFSA was making. Undoubtedly, seven justices thought otherwise, much like another similar challenge several years ago.
The issue was ONLY the agency funding-not anything else-the supreme court can only rule on the issue of the suit. They cannot just decide to pull something out of their asses and combine it with what is in the original suit. I agree the CFPB needs to be gotten rid of-it is useless-but since it was created by congress, a separate suit based on the legality/constitutionality of its existence needs to be filed and brought to the supreme court to address THAT issue-hopefully it will happen, as soon as FJB is gone...
The majority opinion that references the Post Office and Customs Service as similar “quasi-independent” federal agencies with funding sources independent of Congressional appropriations seems highly relevant in this case.
I rarely disagree with Thomas but on this one “I dissent”, strongly. If we had the votes in Congress I’d like to repeal the creation of the CFPB.
Yes. Those two entities were relevant in the eyes of the majority.
The difference is that they are not funded by the fed which has absolutely no oversight and unlimited access to printed money with which to fund the agency.
We're beating a dead horse. The decision is over now. :-).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.