SCOTUS 2020: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; (Re Dodd-Frank Act)

Post Reply
User avatar
Addie
Posts: 41439
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

SCOTUS 2020: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; (Re Dodd-Frank Act)

#1

Post by Addie »

New York Times: Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Trump's Power to Fire Consumer Watchdog


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the president is free to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without cause. The decision, rejecting a federal law that sought to place limits on presidential oversight of independent agencies, was a victory for the conservative movement to curb the administrative state.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the court’s five more conservative justices in the majority.

The bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, then a law professor at Harvard and now a senator and former presidential candidate, was created as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was passed in 2010 after the financial crisis. In an effort to protect the bureau’s independence, the statute said the president could remove its director only for cause, defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.”

Business groups have long accused the bureau of regulatory overreach. They challenged the law’s limit on presidential power in court, saying that it violated the separation of powers. The Trump administration agreed with the challengers. The bureau once took the opposite position, but it changed its stance last year, agreeing that its director could be fired at will.

The case before the court, Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7, was brought by a law firm that objected to an investigation of aspects of its debt relief services. The firm challenged the bureau’s power to conduct the investigation, saying its director was unconstitutionally insulated from presidential control.
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 4953
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: SCOTUS 2020: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; (Dodd-Frank Act)

#2

Post by AndyinPA »

I hope that comes back to bite them; hopefully, as early as next year. If the last four years have proven anything, it's that it's time to curb the powers of the presidency, not expand them. Barr be damned.
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1999
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: SCOTUS 2020: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; (Dodd-Frank Act)

#3

Post by neeneko »

AndyinPA wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:05 am
I hope that comes back to bite them; hopefully, as early as next year. If the last four years have proven anything, it's that it's time to curb the powers of the presidency, not expand them. Barr be damned.
I wonder if the GoP will then submit legislation limiting presidential power and cry 'but democrats, didn't you support this before one of your own was in the white house?'

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 4953
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: SCOTUS 2020: Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; (Dodd-Frank Act)

#4

Post by AndyinPA »

neeneko wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:31 am
AndyinPA wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:05 am
I hope that comes back to bite them; hopefully, as early as next year. If the last four years have proven anything, it's that it's time to curb the powers of the presidency, not expand them. Barr be damned.
I wonder if the GoP will then submit legislation limiting presidential power and cry 'but democrats, didn't you support this before one of your own was in the white house?'
I don't disagree at all. I've always thought, even with Democratic presidents, that there were powers they were using that weren't necessarily their constitutionally. twitler has just shown what happens when someone so authoritarian gets into office. And the legislative branch hasn't used powers that are theirs over the last 20-30 years, a bad combination.
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." -- Thomas Paine

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”