Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Case that Could Determine the Fate of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case that could determine the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The case, brought by two trade associations, challenges the funding structure of the CFPB as unconstitutional.

Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the trade associations, faced tough questioning from the justices, who seemed to struggle to grasp the argument he was making. If the court rules in favor of the trade associations, it could gut the agency’s funding and eliminate an important institution in the post-financial crisis regulatory landscape.

The right-wing legal world has been eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping for a chance to dismantle the CFPB. During the oral arguments, the liberal justices had a field day, engaging in many colloquies with Francisco.

The question in the case is whether the way in which the CFPB receives its funding violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. Justice Elena Kagan accused Francisco of making an argument “that has been decisively rejected.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in the coming months. The outcome could have a major impact on the future of the CFPB and the post-financial crisis regulatory landscape.