A District Court judge on Friday issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — a ruling that the administration has already announced it is appealing. The decisions that have been made by Acting Director Russell Vought “were taken in complete disregard for the decision Congress made 15 years ago” forcing Judge Amy Berman Jackson to take the “extraordinary step” of issuing the injunction in a 112-page ruling.
The lawsuit in question was filed by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and other consumer advocacy groups, which sought to block the administration’s efforts to shut down the CFPB and terminate its employees.
Shortly after he was appointed, Vought ordered a “stop-work” order, directing CFPB employees to cease all work tasks. This move was followed by widespread terminations, including the firing of over 150 probationary employees, and the cancellation of critical contracts and services essential to the agency’s operations. The plaintiffs argued that these actions violated the separation of powers by attempting to eliminate an agency created by Congress without legislative approval.
Judge Jackson’s ruling was clear: she issued the injunction to prevent what she described as the “complete destruction” of the CFPB before the court could fully review the case. The judge noted that “the defendants are still engaged in an effort to implement a Presidential plan to shut the agency down entirely and to do it fast,” emphasizing that the actions taken by the administration were in “complete disregard” of Congress’ decision to create the CFPB in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.
She also pointed to the rapid-fire sequence of events, including mass firings and contract cancellations, as evidence that the Trump administration’s actions were not just temporary measures, but part of a deliberate effort to obliterate the agency. Judge Jackson remarked on the “charade for the court’s benefit,” referring to the administration’s claim that it was still performing some of the CFPB’s legally required duties while simultaneously trying to gut its workforce.
The ruling is a temporary win for the plaintiffs, but with the appeal pending, the fate of the CFPB and its operations remains in flux.
