Dear Readers,
It’s been nearly five months since I had the privilege of watching the
Supreme Court in action in Seila Law vs. the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB).
At the time, it was difficult to tell which way the justices would go, as all
four sides in the case made valid points as to whether or not the bureau’s
single-director, for-cause only removal structure violates the separation of
powers, and if so, what is the proper remedy to fix the flaw.
As you’ve read, the CFPB has been declared unconstitutional. What do you
think of the majority opinion that the agency will be allowed to operate, but
the director now can be removed without cause? The court also held that the
structure can be saved by striking out the for-cause termination provision.
Meanwhile, the panel remanded the law firm’s CID issue back to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether it was valid or not — a
remedy that Justice Clarence Thomas did not agree with in his dissent.
In this month’s issue, we delve into the plurality’s reasoning in the case in
its constitutionality analysis and severability decision. We also take a deep
dive into both dissents and get reaction from industry experts on what the
court’s holding means for the future of the CFPB.
Meanwhile, the high court also has decided to take a separate case regarding
the similarly-structured Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). That
case stemmed from a dispute over a 2012 agreement between the FHFA,
Treasury Department and several Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders.
We hope you enjoy this issue — the end result of more than four years’
worth of legal uncertainty regarding the bureau’s structure.
Sincerely,
Tracey Read
Editor, RESPA NEWS