Justices to hear challenge to consumer agency

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday that it will take up a Republican-led challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that could threaten how the consumer watchdog agency functions. It is the second time in three years that the justices will be examining the federal agency, which was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

The case will not be heard before October. That’s when the court begins its next term.

Late last year, a federal appeals court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — ruled that the agency’s funding structure is unconstitutional, threatening its ability to function. The Biden administration asked the high court to review that decision, which it has now agreed to do.

The administration said the lower court’s ruling “threatens to inflict immense legal and practical harms on the CFPB, consumers, and the nation’s financial sector.”

Since the bureau was created more than a decade ago by the Dodd-Frank Act, it has varied in its aggressiveness. During the Obama administration, it used its muscle to collect fines from banks and credit card companies; during the Trump administration, it drastically scaled back enforcement actions. Republicans have argued that the agency has unchecked power.

The case the justices agreed to hear centers on the agency’s funding. Unlike a majority of agencies, the CFPB does not get its funding from the annual budget process in Congress. Instead, it is funded directly by the Federal Reserve. The agency’s budget is capped at 12% of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System. In the 2022 fiscal year, the agency received about $640 million.

The case the justices will hear began when two associations sued over the agency’s Payday Lending Rule. They argued in part that the agency’s funding structure violated the Constitution, improperly insulating the agency from congressional supervision. A trial court ruled against the associations, but the appeals court agreed the funding structure was unconstitutional.