Corporate Accountability

English v. Trump

In English v. Trump, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals considered who, by law, was the acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pending the nomination and Senate confirmation of a new Director: Leandra English, who was named Deputy Director of the Bureau by its prior Director, or Mick Mulvaney, who President Trump named as acting Director.

Case Summary

On November 24, 2017, Richard Cordray resigned as the CFPB’s director. Prior to resigning, and pursuant to his authority under the statute that established the CFPB, Cordray appointed the Bureau’s Chief of Staff, Leandra English (who has served in a number of leadership roles at the CFPB), as Deputy Director of the Bureau. That same day, President Donald Trump ordered Mick Mulvaney, currently head of the Office of Management and Budget, to serve as acting Director of the Bureau, purportedly pursuant to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA). English sued, claiming that she is rightfully the acting Director and seeking to prevent Mulvaney’s appointment as acting Director. She also filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), asking the court to preserve the status quo pending a ruling on the merits of her lawsuit.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of current and former members of Congress in support of English’s motion for a TRO. The court denied that motion, and English filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.

CAC filed a second friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of members of Congress in support of English’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The district court denied English’s motion for a preliminary injunction. English appealed its decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. CAC again filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of former and current members of Congress in support of English. In our brief, we explained, as we did in our district court briefs, that to preserve the Bureau’s independence, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provides that in the event of a vacancy in the position of Director, the Bureau’s Deputy Director “shall . . . serve as acting Director.”  As we further explained, this mandatory language displaces the default rules established by the FVRA under which the President can temporarily fill executive offices, and that interpretation of the text is supported by the structure and history of Dodd-Frank.  Indeed, the text, structure, and history of Dodd-Frank all make clear that Congress intended to ensure that the Bureau would not be headed—potentially for many months—by an acting Director hand-picked by the President without the check of Senate confirmation, thus depriving the Bureau of the independence that was central to Congress’s plan in establishing it.

Before the Court of Appeals issued a ruling, English resigned and moved to voluntarily dismiss the case.

 

Case Timeline

  • November 27, 2017

    CAC files amicus brief on behalf of current and former members of Congress in support of English’s motion for a TRO

    D.D.C. Amicus Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
  • November 27, 2017

    District court hears oral argument on the motion for a TRO

  • November 28, 2017

    District Court judge denies English’s motion for TRO

  • December 6, 2017

    English files motion for preliminary injunction

  • December 8, 2017

    CAC files amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress in support of English’s motion for a preliminary injunction

    D.D.C. Amicus Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
  • December 22, 2017

    Oral argument on English’s motion for a preliminary injunction is heard

  • January 10, 2018

    District court denies motion for a preliminary injunction

    D.D.C. Opinion
  • January 12, 2018

    English appeals to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

    Notice of Appeal
  • February 6, 2018

    CAC files amicus brief in the D.C. Circuit on behalf of Members of Congress

    D.C. Cir. Amicus Brief
  • April 12, 2018

    D.C. Circuit hears oral argument

  • July 13, 2018

    D.C. Circuit dismisses case

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
April 2, 2024

The Supreme Court May Give Us Another 2008 Financial Crisis

The Lever
A new case could decimate state-level consumer protections against predatory banking practices.
By: Smita Ghosh, Katya Schwenk
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney

In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Supreme Court is considering what standard courts should apply when deciding whether to grant a National Labor Relations Board request for a temporary injunction to halt an alleged unfair...
Corporate Accountability
February 27, 2024

RELEASE: At Oral Argument, Justices Recognize Profound Effect of Banking Case on State Efforts to Protect Consumers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court this morning in Cantero...
By: Smita Ghosh
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission

In National Association of Private Fund Managers v. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Fifth Circuit is determining whether Congress granted the SEC the authority to regulate private fund advisers.
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Supreme Court

Cantero v. Bank of America

In Cantero v. Bank of America, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state law protecting New York homeowners is preempted by the federal National Banking Act.
Corporate Accountability
December 5, 2023

RELEASE: Supreme Court Oral Argument Shows Conservative Attempt to Limit Congress’s Taxing Power is Misguided

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Moore v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle