Corporate Accountability

PHH Says U.S. Hasn’t Made Case for Rehearing by Full D.C. Circuit

By Chris Bruce

PHH Corp. said a federal appeals court in Washington shouldn’t rehear an October ruling that said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership framework violates the Constitution (PHH Corp. v. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau , D.C. Cir., No. 15-cv-01177, supplemental response 1/27/17 ).

The Jan. 27 filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the government hasn’t made its case for a review by the D.C. Circuit’s full complement of judges.

The October ruling by two judges on a three-judge D.C. Circuit panel said the CFPB’s structure violates the separation of powers, and a recent filing by the government urged the full D.C. Circuit to review that decision.

But the government’s filing doesn’t really confront the panel’s holding, PHH’s lawyers told the court. “The panel applied the governing standard and reached the unavoidable conclusion that the CFPB’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers,” they said. “Although the United States would have preferred that the panel take a (supposedly) different path in reaching that conclusion, it never challenges the panel’s ultimate result.”

The filing came one day after Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) moved to intervene in the PHH case. They said the new administration will try to remove Cordray, or that it will make no effort to defend the CFPB’s status as an independent agency as established by the Dodd-Frank Act.

“Movants now seek to intervene in this litigation because recent events have made it clear that their interests in preserving the leadership structure they voted for may no longer be adequately represented by the new Administration,” Brown and Waters said in their motion.

The lawmakers are represented by Elizabeth B. Wydra, Brianne J. Gorod, Brian R. Frazelle, and Simon Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington.

PHH is represented by Theodore B. Olson and Helgi C. Walker of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher in Washington, Mitchel H. Kider, David M. Souders, Sandra B. Vipond, and Michael S. Trabon of Weiner Brodsky Kider in Washington, and Thomas M. Hefferon and William M. Jay of Goodwin Procter in Washington.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
January 15, 2026

January Newsletter: CAC Keeps Up the Fight for Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

In Millennia Housing Management v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s authority to...
Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...