Rule of Law

RELEASE: CFPB Decision is Victory for Consumers, Backed by Constitutional Text and History

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in CFPB v. CFSA, a case in which the Court was considering whether Congress’s chosen method of funding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, Constitutional Accountability Center Deputy Chief Counsel Brian Frazelle issued the following reaction:

Today’s decision upholding the funding structure of the CFPB is a big win for consumers, allowing the agency to continue fighting for everyday Americans just as Congress intended.

This victory is not surprising: advocates for predatory lenders challenging the Bureau failed to provide a coherent explanation of why its funding violated the Constitution, nor could they square their claims with the text or history of the Appropriations Clause, or with legislation dating to the founding. In fact, as our brief on behalf of historians and constitutional scholars emphasized, the nation’s very first federal agency was funded much like the CFPB. Justice Thomas’s opinion for the Court relied on this and similar examples we cited in upholding the Bureau’s funding.

The Court’s decision is in keeping with the text and history of the Appropriations Clause. Ultimately, that Clause was adopted to give Congress a check on executive branch spending, not to let judges dictate how Congress exercises that power. By upholding the balance of power the Framers established—and rightly rejecting the absurd arguments against the CFPB—the Supreme Court delivered a win for the separation of powers and rejected an attempt to aggrandize the power of the courts.

##

Resources:

Case page in CFPB v. CFSA: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/consumer-financial-protection-bureau-v-community-finance-services-association-of-america/

##

More from Rule of Law

Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

Supreme Court not fully sold on foreclosure fairness bid

Courthouse News Service
A showdown over tax foreclosures had the justices considering the striking set of facts that...
Rule of Law
February 25, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Oral Argument Focuses on Takings Clause, While Largely Ignoring the Problematic Excessive-Fines-Clause Analysis Applied by the Court Below

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Pung v....
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
February 24, 2026

50+ Organizations Condemn Federal Authorities for Blocking Minnesota’s Independent Investigation into CBP Killing of Alex Pretti

WASHINGTON, DC — Today marks one month since the killing of Alex Pretti on January...
Rule of Law
February 20, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Rejects President Trump’s Claim of Unilateral Tariff Authority

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump...
By: Simon Chin
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Climate United Fund v. Citibank

In Climate United Fund v. Citibank, the en banc United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally abolish a mandatory grant program created by Congress.
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Oregon v. Landis

In Oregon v. Landis, the Ninth Circuit is considering when states may prosecute federal officers for state crimes.