The big news from the Supreme Court this morning was the decision related to Louisiana’s abortion restrictions, but this one deserves some attention, too.
The Supreme Court in a ruling Monday allowed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to continue operating, but said that the director of the consumer watchdog could be removed by the president of the United States “at will.” The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with a California-based law firm’s argument that the CFPB’s leadership by a sole director who was removable “only for cause” violated the separation of powers rule under the U.S. Constitution.
The full, 5-4 ruling in Seila Law vs Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is online here.
For both sides, there’s some good news and some bad news. For the right, which has long opposed the existence of the CFPB, the high court’s majority weakened the agency’s independence — which is clearly a step in Republicans’ preferred direction — but left the bureau otherwise intact.
For the left, obvious, the opposite is true: it’s encouraging that the CFPB will continue to exist, but it’s a problem that its director will serve at the pleasure of the president. The bureau, for all intents and purposes, will be just another executive-branch agency.
As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, “Today’s decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission — a measure of independence from political pressure.”









