The Supreme Court has denied a request to hear arguments in a case that challenged the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The Department of Justice had argued for the Supreme Court to deny the petition, saying that the case was “a poor vehicle for considering the constitutionality of the Bureau’s structure.”
The case, in which State National Bank of Big Spring sued the federal government, claiming that the “unprecedented, unchecked power” given to the CFPB violated the Constitution’s separation of powers.
It’s interesting to note that the DOJ agreed that the CFPB’s leadership structure — operating under a single director who can only be fired for cause — is unconstitutional, but argued that there are other cases that are more fitting to be argued before the Supreme Court for it to weigh in on this issue.
For example, because this particular case had been argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, where Justice Brett Kavanaugh had reviewed the case and submitted a dissenting opinion.
There are other cases currently pending at the appellate court level that would not require Justice Kavanaugh to recuse himself and could be argued before the full court.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute had joined the bank in asking for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the case and the organization said it was “disappointed” with the decision to deny the petition.
“The case raises constitutional issues of major importance regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that wields massive power over the economic activities of the public and sets a dangerous precedent for unaccountable federal bureaucracy,” Sam Kazman, Competitive Enterprise Institute’s general counsel, said in a statement.
“But there are other pending lawsuits that raise these same issues, and we are hopeful the court will have another opportunity to review them.”
