E Point Perfect
Law \ Legal

New blog post by Adam White discusses “the CFPB’s blank check”; Ballard Spahr to hold Dec. 16 webinar on CFSA decision


The eyes of the consumer finance world are now on the U.S. Supreme Court as it decides whether to grant the CFPB’s certiorari petition in Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd. v. CFPB (CFSA Decision).  In the CFSA Decision, a Fifth Circuit panel held the CFPB’s funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Adam White, a renowned expert on Separation of Powers and the Appropriations Clause and a close follower of the Supreme Court, recently wrote a blog post published by the Yale Journal on Regulation entitled “The CFPB’s Blank Check—or, Delegating Congress’s Power of the Purse.” In the blog post, Adam shares some of his observations about the CFSA Decision, a decision that he views as raising “the most important administrative-state issues of our time.” 

On December 16, 2022,  from 2:00 p.m.to 3:30 p.m. ET, Adam will join members of Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group for a 90-minute webinar in which we will take deep dive into all important aspects of the CFSA Decision.  For more information and to register for the webinar, “How the Supreme Court Will Decide Threat to CFPB’s Funding and Structure,” click here.

Adam also recently wrote an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The CFPB Engages in Legal Deception” in which he argues that the CFPB’s position in its certiorari petition that its funding structure satisfies the Appropriations Clause is inconsistent with previous CFPB declarations that its funding does not come from “appropriations.”


Source link

Related posts

The Best Place to Go, When You Have to Go (SHLD Ep.2)

How To Read an IRS Revenue Agent Report

Final Round: Employment Bills Making The Cut To The Governor

The Register of Overseas Entities From a Restructuring and Insolvency Perspective

#WhyIAmASolo – I Don’t Need An App To Manage Employees.

Business Court Finds that Alleged Lack of Diligence by Law Firm Had No Impact on Large Trial Court Loss