Rule of Law

Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Unconstitutional?

On Tuesday, October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. Industry groups representing payday lenders (who have been affected by the CFPB’s rulemaking) brought a challenge arguing that the CFPB funding structure is unconstitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The outcome of the case could have big effects not just on the future of the CFPB itself, but on the economy, markets, and financial institutions more broadly. In this episode, two leading constitutional law scholars and Supreme Court experts—Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center, and Professor Jennifer Mascot of the Antonin Scalia Law School—join Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to recap the oral arguments in the CFPB case, what questions or issues the justices were the most focused on, and predict how the Court might rule.

Today’s episode was produced by Bill Pollock, Samson Mostashari, and Lana Ulrich. It was engineered by Bill Pollock. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich, Samson Mostashari, Cooper Smith, and Yara Daraiseh.


Brianne Gorod is the Constitutional Accountability Center’s chief counsel. Brianne joined CAC from private practice at O’Melveny & Myers (OMM), where she was counsel in the firm’s Supreme Court and appellate practice.

Jennifer Mascot is assistant professor of law and co-director of The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the Antonin Scalia Law School. She previously served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel within the U.S. Department of Justice.

Jeffrey Rosen is the president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization devoted to educating the public about the U.S. Constitution. Rosen is also a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and a contributing editor of The Atlantic.

Additional Resources: