Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd..
The Supreme Court reviewed the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which allows it to draw funds from the Federal Reserve System as deemed necessary by its Director. The Fifth Circuit had previously ruled that this mechanism violated the Appropriations Clause. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, finding the funding method constitutional.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd..
The Court held that Congress' statutory authorization for the CFPB to draw funds from the Federal Reserve System satisfies the Appropriations Clause.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Spending Power is relevant to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
The case revolves around Congress's authority to provide funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau outside the ordinary appropriations process.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fsc subject to the command that '[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.'
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
The case involves the constitutional limits on agency authority, specifically regarding the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The associations' argument that the Bureau's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause.
-
Why Nondelegation is relevant to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
The case addresses whether Congress can delegate the power to determine funding amounts to an agency, implicating nondelegation principles.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The associations argue that the Bureau's funding is not 'drawn . . . in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law' because the agency itself decides the amount of annual funding to draw from the Federal Reserve System.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd. that support the summary and concepts above.
The Bureau's funding statute satisfies the requirements of the Appropriations Clause.
Congress did not violate the Appropriations Clause by permitting the Bureau to decide how much funding to draw up to a cap.
The Constitution does not explicitly limit the duration of appropriations for other purposes.