Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Unconstitutional?
Recapping oral arguments in a case challenging the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (traffic.megaphone.fm) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
On Tuesday, October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. Industry groups representing payday lenders brought a challenge arguing that the CFPB funding structure is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The outcome of the case could have big effects not just on the future of the CFPB itself, but on the economy, markets, and the future of the administrative state. In this episode, two leading constitutional law scholars and Supreme Court experts—Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Professor Jennifer Mascott of the Antonin Scalia Law School— join Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments in the CFPB case, what questions or issues the justices were the most focused on, and predict how the Court might rule.
Resources:
- CFPB v. CFSAA (oral argument transcript)
- Brianne Gorod/Constitutional Accountability Center, Amicus Brief in support of petitioners
- Jennifer Mascott/Separation of Power Clinic, Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State, Amicus Brief of 132 members of Congress in support of respondents
- Seila Law v. CFPB (2020)
- Appropriations Clause, Interactive Constitution
Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].
Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.
Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.
You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.