Supreme Court's CFPB Ruling Highlights Disagreements on Delegating Congressional Authority

The Supreme Court determined on Thursday that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is lawfully funded by Congress, rejecting a conservative push to dismantle the organization's uncommon funding structure. 

The Details: In a 7-2 decision, the court rejected claims that the CFPB’s use of the Federal Reserve System for funding unlawfully circumvented Congress’ monetary authority. Established in 2011, the CFPB is shielded from yearly political pressure during the congressional appropriations processes. If the lawsuit against CFPB had been successful, every action taken by the CFPB since its creation could have been invalidated. 

‘Strayed far from the design of the Founders’: National Review (Right bias) senior writer Dan McLaughlin framed the CFPB’s funding mechanism negatively, saying the CFPB “can operate like a monarchy,” making it “an assault on the principles of our founding charter.” McLaughlin said the Supreme Court had “effectively punted in restraining the perpetual-appropriations racket.” However, McLaughlin noted Justice Clarence Thomas’ statement that “a permanent appropriation is still an appropriation; Congress has nobody to blame but itself for giving away its power over the CFPB.”

‘Too extreme for even Clarence Thomas’: Jordan Rubin, writer of MSNBC’s (Left bias) Deadline: Legal blog, framed the legal theory against the CFPB’s funding model as “extreme” and cast the 5th Circuit appeals court, which accepted the theory’s “radicalism,” as “right-wing” and “Donald Trump-appointed.” Rubin highlighted an argument from Justice Elena Kagan, who said the challenge to the CFPB was “flying in the face of 250 years of history.” This summary was developed with the help of AllSides' AI technology.