We’re getting close to needing a map to follow all the twists and turns that this case is taking, especially is it continues on two fronts — in the District Court and at the Appellate level. An Appeals Court panel yesterday temporarily paused a lower court’s order that had blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At the same time, the District Court judge issued a ruling of her own, largely denying the government’s request to stay her ruling while the appeal is progressing.
The three-judge panel, which includes two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee, will hear arguments in the case next week. While the appeals court’s decision allows the government to proceed with its plans to restructure the CFPB, it also keeps in place certain agreements with the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that block the mass firing of staff, the termination of contracts, and the destruction of agency records.
The court’s move is a temporary one, giving it time to fully consider the DOJ’s motion.
At the same time, Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District Court for the District of Columbia, who last week granted an injunction halting the government’s actions before the court could fully review the case. While the Department of Justice filed an appeal, arguing that Judge Jackson’s ruling went too far and that the CFPB should be allowed to make workforce decisions as it saw fit, Judge Jackson stood firm in her decision. She rejected most of the government’s appeal in yesterday’s ruling, and only granted a brief delay on one aspect of the injunction, which would have required the CFPB to file a compliance report by April 3.
In her ruling, Judge Jackson cited the urgency of preserving the agency’s operations, especially given the government’s swift efforts to eliminate it. The Trump administration had directed Acting Director Russell Vought to shut down the agency’s functions in early February, which included halting all supervisory activities, issuing a stop-work order, and preparing for mass layoffs. Judge Jackson’s order was intended to freeze these actions and maintain the status quo while the legal battle continues.
While the Justice Department argued that Judge Jackson’s ruling improperly restrained the agency’s ability to make routine management decisions, Judge Jackson noted that the evidence suggested the administration had moved beyond routine management to a full-scale dismantling of the agency. She also pointed out that the administration had not shown any legitimate harm that would occur from maintaining the injunction.
The appeals court’s pause, combined with Judge Jackson’s refusal to lift her previous order, sets the stage for a critical week ahead. The D.C. Circuit Court is scheduled to hear arguments on April 9, which will likely determine the future of the CFPB for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the agency remains under the protective shield of Judge Jackson’s order, preserving its workforce and preventing any further steps toward its dismantling.
