The Flip-Side to CFPB v. CFSAA: What if the Director Requests $0 in appropriations?
The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was structured to give its director independence from the executive branch and Congress. The CFPB Director served a fixed-term, and could only be removed by the President for proper cause. And the CFPB did not have to ask Congress for appropriations. Rather, the Director could request funds from the Federal Reserve that he deemed “reasonably necessary.” And if the agency has a budget surplus, it could maintain and even invest those funds. From its inception, the CFPB was a separation of powers abomination.
Yet, despite the best efforts of regulated parties, the CFPB has survived to this day. Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) found the for-cause protection to be unconstitutional, but saved the agency by making the director removable at will. However, CFPB v. CFSAA (2024) upheld the funding scheme. As a result, Congress has not actually appropriated a penny for th
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
