Supreme Court Schedules Early Oral Arguments for CFPB Case

The case surrounding the CFPB’s funding scheme will be heard on the first day of the Supreme Court's next term.

David Baumann


Jul 24



View all posts by 

David Baumann

Articles Posted by

David Baumann

A squiggly pink arrow pointing downward and to the right.

Issue of bureau’s funding scheme to be heard on first day of next SCOTUS term.

The U.S. Supreme Court has set a date of Oct. 3 for oral arguments in the case challenging the funding scheme of the CFPB.

That is the first day of the court’s next term and the schedule may indicate the importance the court has placed on the case. Even then, however, a ruling may not be expected until next year.

Backstory and Context

The CFPB is appealing a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that since the agency does not go through the appropriations process, its funding scheme is unconstitutional.

The Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) had filed suit contending that the CFPB’s payday lending rule was void, given its funding scheme is unconstitutional.

Recent Developments

The case has garnered significant attention from all sides of the issue.

Most recently, a group of Republican state attorneys general have asked the court to grant them ten minutes from the CFSA’s 30-minute oral argument time in order to provide their support of the ruling that found the agency’s funding scheme unconstitutional.

“The States bring special expertise in the consumer-protection field that Respondents, as regulated parties, do not share,” the attorneys general stated. “As this Court has recognized before, consumer protection is the States’ traditional domain.”

They added, “An unbounded CFPB ultimately strikes at the States’ powers over the financial markets.”

The CFSA has urged the court to reject that request, contending that the association and its affiliates “are best situated to address the specific legal issues about the validity of the CFPB’s funding scheme that will presumably be the focus of oral argument.”


No items found.