Economic Rules Hub
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
Home Politics Supreme Court rules in favor of CFPB, brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Politics

Supreme Court rules in favor of CFPB, brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren

by admin May 17, 2024
May 17, 2024

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the funding mechanism that feeds the Obama-era agency Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional.

In a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court held that Congress uniquely authorized the bureau to draw its funding directly from the Federal Reserve System, therefore allowing it to bypass the usual funding mechanisms laid out in the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. 

‘For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding on an annual basis. This annual process forces them to regularly implore Congress to fund their operations for the next year. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is different. The Bureau does not have to petition for funds each year. Instead, Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System the amount its Director deems ‘reasonably necessary to carry out’ the Bureau’s duties, subject only to an inflation-adjusted cap,’ Thomas wrote. 

‘In this case, we must decide the narrow question whether this funding mechanism complies with the Appropriations Clause. We hold that it does,’ the opinion states. 

The CFPB launched in 2008 with the help of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., in the aftermath of the market crash, with authority to regulate banking and lending agencies via federal rules.

A group of banking associations, represented by former solicitor general Noel Francisco, sued the CFPB, arguing that because the agency, not Congress, decides the amount of annual funding and draws it from the Federal Reserve, it violates the Appropriations Clause. 

The Supreme Court’s majority disagreed, saying, ‘Although there may be other constitutional checks on Congress’ authority to create and fund an administrative agency, specifying the source and purpose is all the control the Appropriations Clause requires.’

‘The statute that authorizes the Bureau to draw money from the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out its duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause,’ the opinion states. 

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the decision, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, saying, ‘The Court upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful [CFPB] may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.’

‘According to the Court, all that the Appropriations Clause demands is that Congress ‘identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes,’’ Alito wrote. 

‘Under this interpretation, the Clause imposes no temporal limit that would prevent Congress from authorizing the Executive to spend public funds in perpetuity,’ he stated. 

‘In short, there is apparently nothing wrong with a law that empowers the Executive to draw as much money as it wants from any identified source for any permissible purpose until the end of time.’ 

‘That is not what the Appropriations Clause was understood to mean when it was adopted. In England, Parliament had won the power over the purse only after centuries of struggle with the Crown. Steeped in English constitutional history, the Framers placed the Appropriations Clause in the Constitution to protect this hard-won legislative power,’ he said. 

Alito continued, ‘There are times when it is our duty to say simply that a law that blatantly attempts to circumvent the Constitution goes too far. This is such a case.’ 

‘Today’s decision is not faithful to the original understanding of the Appropriations Clause and the centuries of history that gave birth to the appropriations requirement, and I therefore respectfully dissent,’ he concluded. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

0
FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
previous post
Johnson rebukes Biden, Schumer over blocked Israel aid as House votes to force bomb deliveries
next post
Biden campaign accepts VP debate invitation for summer showdown with Kamala Harris and Trump running mate

Related Posts

Snub of Musk’s NASA nominee ally preceded sudden ‘big, beautiful...

June 7, 2025

Musk feud presents ‘unprecedented’ dynamic compared to past Trump disputes:...

June 7, 2025

US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces...

June 7, 2025

Supreme Court rules DOGE can access Social Security information

June 7, 2025

FLASHBACK: Musk accused Trump, GOP leaders of not wanting to...

June 7, 2025

Trump announces China will restart rare earth mineral shipments to...

June 7, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free


    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent

    • Israel confirms it is arming Hamas rivals in operation opposition calls ‘complete madness’

      June 7, 2025
    • How the US could be vulnerable to the same kind of drone swarm attack Ukraine unleashed on Russia’s bomber fleet

      June 7, 2025
    • Video of man carrying suspicious bundle after his employee’s death fuels femicide outrage in Mexico

      June 7, 2025
    • Carney invites Modi to G7 summit despite strained ties between Canada and India

      June 7, 2025
    • Kharkiv hit by ‘most powerful attack’ of entire war, mayor says, as Russia pounds Ukraine again

      June 7, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (1,394)
    • Investing (3,407)
    • Politics (4,556)
    • World (4,465)
    • Email Whitelisting
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contacts
    • About us

    Disclaimer: EconomicRulesHub.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2024 EconomicRulesHub.com | All Rights Reserved

    Economic Rules Hub
    • World
    • Politics
    • Business
    • Investing