December 5, 2021

Volume XI, Number 339

Advertisement
Advertisement

December 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Federal District Court Judge Declares Bureau Unconstitutional

On June 21, 2018, U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that the structure of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”) was unconstitutional and, therefore, the Bureau lacked authority to bring claims under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (“CFPA”). The ruling rejected the D.C. Circuit’s en banc opinion in PHH that upheld the Bureau’s constitutionality. If the decision is appealed to the Second Circuit and affirmed in whole or in part on the constitutional issue, it could create a circuit split that paves the way for the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the Bureau.

In rejecting the PHH en banc opinion, Judge Preska adopted portions of Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent, which concluded that the Bureau “is unconstitutionally structured because it is an independent agency that exercises substantial executive power and is headed by a single Director,” and because the single director is protected by the CFPA’s for-cause removal provision. But Judge Preska’s ruling went further than this dissent—which would have invalidated only the for-cause removal provision in the CFPA—and held that, because the for-cause removal provision “is at the heart” of Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, Title X should be struck in its entirety. In reaching this conclusion, Judge Preska adopted a portion of Judge Henderson’s dissent in PHH, which concluded that the presumption of severability was rebutted and did not apply. As a result of this reasoning, Judge Preska found that the Bureau “lack[ed] authority to bring this enforcement action because its composition violates the Constitution’s separation of powers,” and dismissed the Bureau from the action and the Bureau’s claims.

Although the Bureau is no longer a party to the lawsuit, the case will continue. The Bureau had joined with the N.Y. attorney general to bring this action for alleged scams by RD Legal and related entities that targeted NFL concussion victims and 9/11 first responders. Judge Preska denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that the N.Y. attorney general had independent authority to bring claims under the CFPA and New York law.

© 2021 Covington & Burling LLPNational Law Review, Volume VIII, Number 180
Advertisement

About this Author

Lucille C. Bartholomew, Covington Burling, Financial and litigation attorney
Associate

Lucille C. Bartholomew is an associate in the financial institutions group. Her practice focuses on assisting financial institutions with enforcement, compliance, and transactional matters.

Representative Matters

  • Representing financial institutions in connection with OCC, FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, SIGTARP, FTC, and CFPB investigations.
  • Representing financial institutions in conducting internal investigations, including for sales practices and anti-money laundering issues.
  • ...
202-662-5079
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement