US: Supreme Court will hear challenge to autonomy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

US Supreme Court will hear challenge to autonomy of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

09:45  19 october  2019
09:45  19 october  2019 Source:   latimes.com

Census Bureau Seeks Driver’s License Data, Including Citizenship And Eye Color

  Census Bureau Seeks Driver’s License Data, Including Citizenship And Eye Color The U.S. Census Bureau has asked several states to turn over driver's licenserecords that include personal data like eye color as part of President DonaldTrump's effort to obtain citizenship data.The Census Bureau said Tuesday that it requested the information as part ofits effort to use existing government records to compile data on citizenship.The agency said it was requesting the records to comply with Trump's Julyexecutive order asking it to

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to take up a case this term that could significantly weaken the structure and independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , a government watchdog agency that was the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren and opened its doors in the wake of the 2008

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it will hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Under President Donald Trump, the CFPB has already dramatically pared back its role as a financial watchdog. A report published by the Consumer

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Friday it will hear a constitutional challenge to the semi-independent status of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a government agency created by Congress in the wake of Great Recession to police mortgage providers, credit card issuers and other consumer lenders.

a large white building with United States Supreme Court Building in the background: The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2018. The Supreme Court will hear a Trump administration appeal on 'quick' deportation.© Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/TNS The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25, 2018. The Supreme Court will hear a Trump administration appeal on 'quick' deportation.

At issue is whether the bureau’s director has too much protection from being fired by the president. Under the law, the director can only be fired by the president for cause. It was designed that way by Elizabeth Warren, who was then a Harvard professor and is now a U.S. senator and leading Democratic presidential contender, to protect the agency from outside political pressure.

Sotomayor breaks new two-minute rule as Supreme Court hears immigration case

  Sotomayor breaks new two-minute rule as Supreme Court hears immigration case Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor broke a new rule for justices Wednesday as the court heard arguments in an immigration and employment case.Jumping in to ask a question, Sotomayor broke the "two minute rule" that allows attorneys before the court to begin arguments for two minutes without being interrupted by a justice. Jumping in to ask a question, Sotomayor broke the "two minute rule" that allows attorneys before the court to begin arguments for two minutes without being interrupted by a justice. The new rule was implemented as the new Supreme Court term began last week, CNN reported.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would hear a challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau , agreeing to decide whether the president is free to fire its director without cause.

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider giving the president broad power to replace the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , accepting a case that could curb the independence of the watchdog agency tasked with regulating mortgages and credit cards.

The Trump administration urged the court to hear the case and reject the director’s semi-independent status. Since it launched in 2011, conservatives and business groups have long complained the agency has too much power.

A ruling in the case could signal whether the court’s conservative majority is ready to rein in an array of other semi-independent agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission or even the Federal Reserve.

Throughout the 20th century, Congress created independent agencies and deliberately shielded them from direct political control by the president. Usually, they are governed by a board with officials named by different presidents.

Supreme Court steps into case over consumer agency

  Supreme Court steps into case over consumer agency WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is stepping into a yearslong, politically charged fight over the federal consumer finance watchdog agency that was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The justices agreed Friday to review an appeals court decision that upheld the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The agency has long been a target of conservative Republicans. The Justice Department usually defends federal law. But the Trump administration agrees with a California law firm challenging the CFPB that the president should be able to fire the agency's director for any reason.

protect consumers from financial fraud. The law that established the CFPB says that the President may not remove the director except for "inefficiency But critics -- including the Trump administration, the current director of the agency, Kathleen Kraninger, as well as a law firm fighting a CFPB -led

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up a case this term that could significantly weaken the structure and independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , a government watchdog agency that was the brainchild of protect consumers from financial fraud.

But in recent decades, some conservatives, including the late Justice Antonin Scalia, championed the “unitary executive” theory, which holds that all the executive power is entrusted solely to the president, who should be free to hire and fire any executive branch employee at will.

That fight will now play out in the dispute over the director of the CFPB. Congress created the bureau as part of the Dodd-Frank Act following the collapse of Wall Street and the home mortgage market. It was charged with protecting consumers from financial scams involving home loans, credit cards, student loans and banking. And it did so by issuing new regulations and launching investigations.

But it quickly became a prime target of finance businesses and their lawyers. Critics include Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh who, as an appeals court judge, argued in dissent that it was unconstitutional to have a federal agency operated by director who could not be removed by the president. Under the CFPB law, the president appoints a director with the approval of the Senate, but once appointed, the director may be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Power to Fire Head of Consumer Bureau

  Supreme Court to Rule on Trump’s Power to Fire Head of Consumer Bureau WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it would hear a challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, agreeing to decide whether the president is free to fire its director without cause. The bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren, then a law professor at Harvard and now a senator and presidential candidate, was created as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was passed in 2010 after the financial crisis. In an effort to protect the bureau’s independence, the statute said the president could remove its director only for cause, defined as “inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance.

Supreme Court agrees to hear case challenging independence of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau . The dispute pits the Trump administration against backers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , the brainchild of Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

The nine justices will hear an appeal involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought by a law firm that had been investigated by the The Supreme Court will likely have to appoint an outside lawyer to argue that the existing structure is constitutional. The CFPB was established in 2011

Kavanaugh said the CFPB director had unusually broad powers that included issuing regulations, undertaking investigations and handing out sanctions and penalties. “The director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other official in any of the three branches of the U.S. government,” aside from the president himself, he wrote last year prior to his nomination to the high court.

Not surprisingly, the lawyers challenging the agency’s structure cited Kavanaugh’s dissent as reason for hearing the case.

The case before the court, Seila Law v. CFPB, began when the bureau looked into allegations that a law firm based in Orange, Calif., had violated its rules regarding telemarketing sales.

The bureau sent a demand for documents, but the firm refused to comply and went to federal court in Santa Ana, arguing the agency itself was unconstitutional because of its structure.

U.S. District Judge Josephine L. Staton upheld the agency and its subpoena, and the 9th Circuit Court affirmed her decision in May.

Judge Paul Watford, writing for the appeals court, said the Supreme Court in the 1930s had upheld the principle of independent agency officials who were not subject to firing by the president. Moreover, in 1988, the court upheld Congress’s creation of independent prosecutors who were shielded from firing by the president.

Supreme Court tosses challenge to Republican-drawn Michigan electoral maps

  Supreme Court tosses challenge to Republican-drawn Michigan electoral maps Supreme Court tosses challenge to Republican-drawn Michigan electoral mapsThe Supreme Court's action voided an order in April by a three-judge panel to rework 34 districts in the state legislature and U.S. House of Representatives whose boundaries were crafted purely to advantage Republicans, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering.

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a case that seeks to undo the financial The firm has been under investigation by the CFPB and filed the lawsuit as it sought to fend off a type of administrative subpoena from the agency.

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a legal challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) in a major victory for critics of the powerful financial regulator.

Scalia dissented alone in that case, but more recently conservatives have cited his views as a basis for reversing course.

The court will hear arguments early next year and issue a ruling by late June.

Consumer advocates urged the court to uphold the agency and its semi-independent status. “The CFPB was created as a strong, independent agency with a director who could only be removed for cause so the bureau could counter the entrenched political power of the financial industry,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of advocacy groups.

But in agreeing to hear the case, the court said the lawyers should provide arguments on whether the provision on removing the director, if found unconstitutional, may be “severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.” That suggests that at least some of the justices might favor a very broad ruling undercutting the financial reform law.

The agency is currently led by former White House aide Kathy Kraninger, whom Trump appointed last year to a five-year term.

That came after the agency’s first director, Obama appointee Richard Cordray, resigned in November 2017, triggering a legal battle over whether the deputy director should take over or whether the president could appoint someone else. Trump initially appointed White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney — a critic of the bureau and advocate for limiting in its powers — as its acting director.

Georgia court rules police need a warrant to get data from your car

  Georgia court rules police need a warrant to get data from your car Your connected car data might be safer from prying eyes -- Georgia's Supreme Court has ruled that police need a warrant to obtain personal data from cars. The decision overturns an earlier state Court of Appeals ruling that defended police obtaining crash data from a car in a vehicular homicide case. The state and appeals court "erred" by claiming that the data grab didn't violate defendant Victor Mobley's Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures, according to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court determined that a car is included in the "effects" covered by the constitutional amendment.

The Supreme Court on Friday said it will consider whether the creation of the watchdog Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Congress in 2010 was Conservatives have long contended that the authority given to the bureau ’s director violates the separation of powers. The CFPB , created in part

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a challenge backed by President Donald Trump's administration to the structure of a federal agency assigned to protect consumers in FILE PHOTO: The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, U.S., as seen on September 16, 2019.

The court also said Friday it will hear two cases to decide whether, and under what circumstances, immigrants facing deportation can seek a further appeal.

In March, the 9th Circuit broke new ground by ruling that an immigrant who was arrested for illegally crossing the border can nonetheless seek an appeal in federal court through a writ of habeas corpus.

The Trump administration, like the Obama and Bush administrations, had maintained that those who cross the border illegally are subject to “expedited removal” after a brief hearing. Government lawyers urged the high court to reverse the 9th Circuit decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.

At the same time, the court agreed to hear an appeal from Nidal Nasrallah, a Lebanese Druze man who said he would face torture if sent back to his homeland. He lost in the 11th Circuit Court in Atlanta, but the justices voted to hear the case of Nasrallah v. Barr.

———

©2019 Los Angeles Times

Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Trump plans to appeal House subpoena for financial records to Supreme Court .
President Trump's attorneys told a federal appeals court Thursday that they intend to take a legal battle with the House Oversight Committee over the president's financial records to the Supreme Court.Trump's legal team asked the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday to review a three-judge panel's decision earlier this month upholding the Oversight Committee's demand for the president's finances. They also filed a separate motion to stay the circuit court's decision, saying that they intend to "ask the Supreme Court to review whether the Mazars subpoena exceeds the Committee's constitutional and statutory authority.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 1
This is interesting!