Consumer Fraud Protection Bureau - Safe for Now

The USSC appears to have little interest in the rationale used in the lawsuit attempting to eliminate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In arguments before the court, the idea that creation of the CPFB by Congress violated the Constitution by establishing a funding mechanism for the CPFB drawing from the Federal Reserve (up to about $735 million per year for 2023) without requiring direct appropriations by Congress is being sliced to shreds by multiple justices including Kavanaugh and Barrett.

According to the CFPB’s own public talking points, it has triggered the return of roughly $17.5 billion dollars to consumers from actions taken against firms like Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Trans Union and others since its creation in 2010. While its charter includes a limit on how much it can draw from the Federal Reserve for operations, it is operating below that cap (cap of $735 million for 2023, currently only drawing about $641 million). With a worst case estimate of that spending rate since 2010, that means $641 x 13 = $8.3 billion in enforcement costs have returned $17.5 billion to consumers. Over a 2x payoff.

Based on this initial vibe from oral arguments, one can only surmise the Weather Channel will soon be reporting sleet and freezing rain in Hell in the near future.



I have been saying this all along. I love this court. If Congress passes it almost forever they will okay it. That does not mean the agency can go way past Congress’s mandate.

This is far better for the nation than voting for the tax cut demagoguery. We barely got a few cents off the dollar if that when all is said and done but many people had pay and benefit cuts instead. It was entirely lies. Our GDP growth has been horrible because of the liars.

Support what matters to you.

I want to say something there is zero new in the lies in DC. This is not some sort of new level of it. This is us saying do not lie to us. It feels very violent for the country to want honesty. Ironic. That animalistic violence has been there in the background all along.

1 Like

I’m not sure I stated my point clearly based on your reply…

The USSC was expected to FAVOR the plaintiff in this case. The plaintiff was arguing Congress punted on performing its ongoing funding discretion when it created the CFPB via legislation in 2010 then defined its funding mechanism as coming from the Federal Reserve.

Favoring the plaintiff in this case would reflect the larger thread of “jurisprudence” this conservative court has been using to justify the rejection of DECADES of precedent from enacted laws and administrative rulings regarding environmental protections, labor relations, civil rights, etc. The essence of this school of thought has been this: “If Congress WANTED law X to do exactly Y.1 and Y.2, then they need to pass a law that explicity permits or requires Y.1 and Y.2 rather than passing a law merely referencing generic Y and leaving it to unelected bureacrats to fill in the sub-bullets.”

That is NOT what appears to be likely to happen with this case. Even some of the conservative judges explicitly acknowledged the absurdity of claiming that creation of the CFPB resulted in an uncontrollable, unaccountable agency without appropriate controls on its budget.

It could be that the conservative members selectively ignored their own school of anti-regulatory thought because in this case, a sudden elimination of the CFPB was also opposed by powerful financial interests who were concerned a sudden vacuum of existing rules regarding fairness, disclosures, etc. in the mortgage sector would result in chaos in lending markets. Maybe the Mortgage Bankers Association has more clout than the payday loan industry which was very much in favor of eliminating the CFPB. Hmmmm. I wonder why…



That is not what this court is doing. That is how our side of the press whips us up.

The Court is saying to put it through Congress and make the law of the land. I want that. I am tired of liars getting marginal votes for the tax cut that really never materializes. Vote for what you want not a make-believe tax cut.

This Court is a major favor to us in the long run.

A great resource (the absolute best IMO) on SCOTUS:

And on this topic:

From reading the above link, I was left with the impression that USSC was largely in favor of the plaintiff’s position (not that such always matters with oral arguments).