Supreme Court Rules Law Creating Director of CFPB Unconstitutional

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CPFB) was originally created by congress (Elizabeth Warren lead) as a quasi-constitutional watchdog agency to reach into the banking and financial system, under the guise of oversight, and extract money by fining entities for CFPB defined regulatory and/or compliance violations.

Essentially, the CFPB is a congressionally authorized far-left extortion scheme in the banking sector.  The CFPB levies fines; the fines generate income; however, unlike traditional fines that go to the U.S. treasury, the CFBP fines are then redistributed to left-wing organizations to help fund their political activism.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren as an outcome of the Dodd-Frank legislation. Within the CFPB Warren tried to set up the head of the agency, the Director, in a manner that that he/she would operate without oversight. Unfortunately, her dictatorial-fiat-design collapsed when challenged in court.  Backstory #1 – Backstory #2

A federal court found the CFPB Director position held too much power and deemed it unconstitutional. The court decision noted that giving the President power to fire the Director would fix the constitutional problem.  This issue was argued extensively after President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as interim Director.  Elizabeth Warren declaring the CFPB Director could not be fired by the executive.  The legal battle worked its way to the Supreme Court.

♦ Today the Supreme Court ruled (full pdf here) the structure of the CFPB Director position is unconstitutional and the President can fire the head of the agency.  However, SCOTUS kept the CFPB agency in place by severing the part of the law that created the agency head from the rest of the law.

The CFPB remains as a quasi-constitutional agency; the CFPB remains an extortion racket to target any organization within the banking and finance sector; however, the president can fire and appoint the Director of the CFPB.

The decision could have significant implications for the future of the similarly structured Federal Housing Finance Agency, the overseer of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. like the head of the CFPB, the FHFA director is appointed to a five-year term and can only be removed for cause. ~ Politico

BACKSTORY:  When Senator Elizabeth Warren and crew set up the Director of the CFPB, in the aftermath of the Dodd-Frank Act, they made it so that the appointed director can only be fired for cause by the President.

This design was so the Director could operate outside the control of congress and outside the control of the White House.  In essence the CFPB director position was created to work above the reach of any oversight; almost like a tenured position no-one could ever remove.

The position was intentionally put together so that he/she would be untouchable, and the ideologue occupying the position would work on the goals of the CFPB without any oversight.

Elizabeth Warren herself wanted to be the appointed director; however, the reality of her never passing senate confirmation made her drop out.

The CFPB Director has the power to regulate pensions, retirement investment, mortgages, bank loans, credit cards and essentially every aspect of all consumer financial transactions.

However, in response to legal challenges by Credit Unions and Mortgage providers, in October 2016 the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that placing so much power in a single Czar or Commissioner was unconstitutional:

[…]  The five-year-old agency violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because too much power is in the hands of its director, found the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Giving the president the power to get rid of the CFPB’s director and to oversee the agency would fix the situation, the court said. (more)

After the November 8, 2016, election (during the lame-duck Obama period), the CFPB sought an en banc review of the decision by the circuit court panel.  However, in March 2017 the Trump administration reversed the government’s position.

Today the Supreme Court finally settled the issue.