201

The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau Is Constitutional, After All (theintercept.com)

submitted 1 month ago by IndustryStandard@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a blow to the conservative legal movement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is not, in fact, an unconstitutional abomination.

The independent agency — which oversees payday lenders, credit card companies, and student loans — has long been a partisan target. And as it turns out, its funding mechanism is perfectly constitutional, the court ruled Thursday in a 7-2 decision.

Its conclusion was straightforward: When it created the CFPB, Congress passed a law that authorized expenditures from specific sources to fund the agency. This satisfies the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, the court ruled.

The attack on the CFPB is not the only challenge brought this term by conservative opponents of modern regulatory agencies. In as-yet-undecided cases, the Supreme Court will consider whether to curtail the powers of the Securities Exchange Commission and whether to gut a landmark standard for all regulatory oversight. Challenges to the National Labor Relations Board are working their way through lower courts.

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] randompasta 42 points 1 month ago

Check out the radical left "protections" the CFPB has according to https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/the-bureau/. They are, "Rooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices" and "enforcing laws". How else is my business supposed to complete on a fair playing field? /s

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 30 points 1 month ago

In case anyone wants to accuse you of cherry-picking, here's the whole dirty, subversive list:

Rooting out unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices by writing rules, supervising companies, and enforcing the law
Enforcing laws that outlaw discrimination in consumer finance
Taking consumer complaints
Enhancing financial education
Researching the consumer experience of using financial products
Monitoring financial markets for new risks to consumers

[-] psivchaz@reddthat.com 9 points 1 month ago

I spotted the problem. It talks about "education" which is really just code for "communist indoctrination" obviously.

[-] Carrolade@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

Have to admit, 7-2 surprised me a little bit. But I'll take it.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I assume Kavanaugh and ACB were in the majority. They have at least chilled out a bit after destroying reproductive rights.

I'm betting alito and Thomas were the 2 dissenting.

[-] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Could've just read the article lol. Alito and gorsuch. Surprising.

[-] Jode@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

Is this the case that would have vaporized chevron or is there another horror waiting for us. My feeble not lawyer mind can only keep up with so many podcasts about this 😑

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 month ago

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/relentless-inc-v-department-of-commerce/

These are the two Chevron cases. We're not expecting a result from them until June probably.

They can still end up ruling against Chevron and make this ruling essentially pointless.

this post was submitted on 18 May 2024

201 points (99.5% liked)

News

21700 readers

3345 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world