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
November 15, 2025

Justice Jackson goes ‘her own way’ in Supreme Court’s SNAP fight

CNN
As she oversaw President Donald Trump’s emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, case this...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

What’s at stake for Trump with Supreme Court tariff case?

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Elizabeth Wydra, a lawyer and president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, says the stakes for...
Rule of Law
November 5, 2025

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Presidential Authority to Impose Tariffs Under Emergency Powers Law

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Learning Resources...
Rule of Law
November 4, 2025

The other arguments in Trump’s tariffs case

SCOTUS Blog
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Wednesday in the challenges to the tariffs that President...
Rule of Law
November 3, 2025

A SCOTUS Bench Memo for the Trump Tariff Case: Separation of Powers, Delegation, Emergencies, and Pretext

Just Security
Soon after taking office, President Donald Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency

In Appalachian Voices v. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States of Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can unilaterally terminate an entire mandatory grant program created by Congress.