Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
May 2, 2022, Filed
This civil enforcement matter comes to the en banc court on interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The action and its history are accurately described in the panel majority and separate opinions, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] v. All American Check Cashing, Inc., 952 F.3d 591 (5th Cir. 2020).
In the district court, the defendants ("All American") moved for judgment on the pleadings per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), urging that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured because the Bureau is led by a single director removable by the President only for cause.2 The district court denied [*4] the motion "[f ]or the same reasons stated in" PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F.3d 75, 434 U.S. App. D.C. 98 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (en banc), finding "that the Bureau is not unconstitutional based on its single-director structure." On All American's request, the court, in accordance with § 1292(b), certified, and this court accepted, the question "Does the structure of the [CFPB] violate Article II of the Constitution and the Constitution's separation of powers?"
Answering the question in the negative, the panel majority affirmed the denial of judgment on the pleadings. 952 F.3d at 594. Judge Smith dissented. Id. at 602. The court sua sponte voted to rehear the matter en banc, thus vacating the panel opinion. 953 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Three months later, in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2192, 207 L. Ed. 2d 494 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the CFPB's single-director structure "violate[d] the separation of powers."
The ruling in Seila Law decides the pure question of law raised by All American in this interlocutory appeal.3 Moreover, the Supreme Court, in a holding speaking for seven Justices, found "the Director's removal protection severable from the other provisions of Dodd-Frank that establish the CFPB." Id. at 2211 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.). That holding means that, although the district court erred insofar as it declined to find the removal provision infirm, a judgment of dismissal on the pleadings is not called [*5] for under the present state of this record.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 11899 *; 33 F.4th 218
CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INCORPORATED; MID-STATE FINANCE, INCORPORATED; MICHAEL E. GRAY, Individually, Defendants—Appellants.
Prior History: [*1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. USDC No. 3:16-CV-356.
Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 953 F.3d 381, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 8853, 2020 WL 1465910 (5th Cir. Miss., Mar. 20, 2020)Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. All Am. Check Cashing, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131595, 2018 WL 9812125 (S.D. Miss., Mar. 21, 2018)
appropriations, funding, separation of powers, district court, budgetary, removal, powers, fiscal, budget, agencies, purse, executive power, court of appeals, self-funding, insulated, Consumer, spend, enforcement action, perpetual, matters, executive branch, Treasury, violates, cases, interlocutory appeal, funding mechanism, purse strings, protections, pleadings, en banc