The head of the CFPB now believes that the financial regulator is unconstitutionally structured

[FBaggins]

CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger notified senior lawmakers on Tuesday that the bureau had determined that the law that established the agency in the wake of the financial crisis gave her too much independence. That brings her position in line with the one adopted by the Department of Justice in March 2017.

“Mindful of the Bureau’s role as an Executive agency within the Executive Branch [...] I have decided that the Bureau should adopt the Department of Justice’s view,” Kraninger wrote in letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

She noted that the Department of Justice, on behalf of the bureau, had formally filed a brief with the Supreme Court including her new position.

While the Justice Department had earlier said the CFPB was unconstitutional, the bureau had continued to defend itself against court challenges. In the Supreme Court brief, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said, “the Director has reconsidered that position.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/cfpb-head-tells-supreme-court-agency-is-unconstitutional.html

Oh... how convenient.

[Freethinker65]

1. Soon to be rechristened the Corporate Finance Protection Bureau

Might as well defund it and mothball it. There will be no consumer protections with this administration.

[Elwood P Dowd]

2. Better yet, defund and mothball the White House.

Cut off their funding and lock up their crooks who ignore subpoenas.

[Freethinker65]

3. If only

[CousinIT]

4. Trump just asked the Supreme Court to let him fire the CFPB's head. The implications are enormous.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/18/20872236/trump-justice-department-supreme-court-cfpb-unitary-executive

On Tuesday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to hear a lawsuit challenging the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) — taking the same side as the people suing the government in a major constitutional dispute.

The administration essentially threw in the towel in the challenge to the consumer protection agency started by senator and presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren. As a general rule, the Justice Department has a duty to defend federal laws challenged in court. The administration, however, decided not to defend the law at issue in this case.

With the Justice Department urging the Court to weigh in, it is now very likely that the justices will do so. The policy implications of this suit, Seila Law v. CFPB, are unclear. In the narrowest sense, Seila Law is a case about whether a federal agency can be led by a single director that the president cannot remove at will. More broadly, however, the case is the most recent skirmish in a war over what kind of government our Constitution permits.

Most likely, the Supreme Court will hold that the president may remove the CFPB director. In the short term, that could give a big boost to a future Democratic president — potentially allowing a President Warren to replace Trump’s CFPB director with her own on the first day of her presidency.

But the Court could also go much further. There is a chance — albeit a very small one — that the Supreme Court could strike down the CFPB in its entirety. There’s a somewhat greater chance that the Supreme Court could disallow “independent” agencies in which the leaders of those agencies are protected against removal by the president

.

[FBaggins]

7. Not quite...

He hasn't asked to fire her... he is asking the court to agree that it's unconstitutional for there to be an executive branch department head that he can't fire.

That's probably correct (and I don't expect the ruling to be 5-4)... but the ironic part of the whole story is that he's unlikely to fire the current head (who was likely put there for the very purpose of "changing her mind" and changing the CFPB's stance on the issue). Which leaves open the possibility that a President Warren can replace her in early 2021 - when she would otherwise have to wait for years (absent "for cause" justification).

[Hortensis]

5. 411 days to November 3, 2020. nt

Removing Trump is like removing a metastatic tumor. Necessary but only part of the battle.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Executive Agencies acting as Supreme Court is also unconstitutional

This is a matter for legal interpretation, not fiat