Supreme Court Affirms Trump’s Right to Say ‘You’re Fired’ to Consumer Regulator
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed President Donald Trump’s ability to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Monday, but left undisturbed the rest of the statute that created the agency in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis.
Writing for the majority in the 5-4 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the California-based firm Seila Law which argued that having the agency’s sole director be removable only “for cause” violated the constitution’s separation of powers rule.
The ruling, which makes the bureau director an “At-Will” employee, overturns decisions by a federal district court and an appellate panel, both of whom rejected the law firm’s arguments.
He was joined in the ruling by the court’s four conservative justices.
In a dissent in which she was joined by her three liberal colleagues, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the majority failed to respect the proper role of the Supreme Court in allowing the two other branches of government to decide how to structure the executive branch.
In Kagan’s view, courts “should stay (mostly) out of the way,” on such matters.
“Insulation from political pressure helps ensure impartial adjudications,” she wrote, adding that: “It promotes continuity, and prevents short-term electoral interests from distorting policy. (Consider, for example, how the Federal Reserve’s independence stops a president trying to win a second term from manipulating interest rates.)”
In order to ensure the CFPB’s independence, the law creating the agency called for it to be headed by a single director, confirmed by the Senate, who would serve a five-year term and who could only be fired for malfeasance, inefficiency or neglect of duty.
That independent structure was challenged by the Trump administration, and a firm that was being investigated by the CFPB for misleading financial practices. Both claimed that the limits on the president’s power to fire the agency head were unconstitutional.
The decision was a victory for President Trump and for those in the business community who hope to trim the sails of independent regulatory agencies.
But the court did not go quite as far as the challengers wanted, limiting its decision only to the single director structure of the agency.
“The CFPB Director’s removal protection is severable from the other statutory provisions bearing on the CFPB’s authority. The agency may therefore continue to operate,” Roberts wrote.
That part of the ruling drew praise from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who first envisioned the bureau while a professor at Harvard Law School.
“Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture,” she tweeted shortly after the ruling was announced, “After years of industry attacks and GOP opposition, a conservative Supreme Court recognized what we all knew: the @CFPB itself and the law that created it is constitutional”
“The CFPB is here to stay,” Warren added.
What was not entirely clear Monday was whether the independence of other single-director agencies — of which there is no shortage — has now been thrown into doubt.
The CFPB, which was established by Congress under former President Barack Obama in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, oversees consumer financial markets like credit cards and home mortgages.
It returned nearly $12 billion to consumers through 2017, before largely curtailing enforcement actions under President Donald Trump.
The dispute underlying Monday’s ruling goes back to November 2017, when the first Senate-confirmed director of the bureau, Richard Cordray, resigned with a year left in his five-year term.
Despite the law creating the agency stating the deputy director is to take over if the director resigns, Trump designated his OMB director Mick Mulvaney to head the agency.
Later, Trump named Mulvaney White House chief of staff, and later nominated Kathy Kraninger to fill the role, something she does to this day.
Following its creation, the bureau moved aggressively to protect consumers from bad actors in the banking and financial services sector.
Among those facing scrutiny was Seila Law, which was under investigation over allegations that it charged consumers illegal upfront fees for debt-relief services, and for allegedly deceiving consumers about those services with misleading advertising and marketing material.
The CFPB, as part of its investigation, issued a letter to Seila demanding certain documents. The firm refused to comply, contending that the structure of the agency is unconstitutional.
“Today’s decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission — a measure of independence from political pressure,” Kagan wrote.
“What does the Constitution say about the separation of powers — and particularly about the president’s removal authority? (Spoiler alert: about the latter, nothing at all.),” Kagan wrote.
“Nowhere does the text say anything about the President’s power to remove subordinate officials at will,” Kagan concluded.
In The News
WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert Collier says that during the seven years he worked as an operating room aide at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, white nurses called him and other Black employees "boy." Management ignored two large swastikas painted on a storage room wall. And for... Read More
(This is the fourth and final part of a four-part series. The first three parts can be read here, here and here.) The First Amendment Prevails The Supreme Court’s decision in the Pentagon Papers case, officially, New York Times Co. v. United States, affirmed historical precedents... Read More
(This is the second part of a four-part series. The first installment can be read here.) To Publish or Not to Publish Upon his return to Washington, Sheehan and an editor booked a room at the Jefferson Hotel, where they spent weeks reading and summarizing the... Read More
The battle was joined on a Monday night. It was shortly after 7 p.m. on June 14, 1971, when a seething President Richard Nixon telephoned his attorney general, John Mitchell, and told him it was time to make the administration’s position clear to The New York... Read More
WASHINGTON -- A California law that requires nonprofit organizations to disclose their donors met with skepticism among most of the U.S. Supreme Court’s justices during a hearing Monday. The law is opposed by coalitions of nonprofit organizations that say the disclosures could dry up their contributions... Read More
WASHINGTON (AP) — After more than a decade in which the Supreme Court moved gradually toward more leniency for minors convicted of murder, the justices on Thursday moved the other way.The high court ruled 6-3 along liberal-conservative lines against a Mississippi inmate sentenced to life in... Read More