U.S. Supreme Court backs challenge to the structure of the CFPB

CNBC's Eamon Javers reports on the Supreme Court ruling on the challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Supreme Court in a ruling Monday allowed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to continue operating, but said that the director of the consumer watchdog could be removed by the president of the United States “at will.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, agreed with a California-based law firm’s argument that the CFPB’s leadership by a sole director who was removable “only for cause” violated the separation of powers rule under the U.S. Constitution.

The 5-4 ruling overturns a federal district court ruling and appellate court decision that had rejected the law firm’s arguments.

“The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will,” Roberts wrote in his majority decision, where he was joined the court’s other four conservative justices.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by her three liberal colleagues, wrote the that majority failed to respect the proper role of the Supreme Court in allowing the two political branches of government, Congress and the presidency, to decide how to structure the executive branch of the government.

“Today’s decision wipes out a feature of that agency its creators thought fundamental to its mission — a measure of independence from political pressure,” Kagan wrote.

For access to live and exclusive video from CNBC subscribe to CNBC PRO:


Turn to CNBC TV for the latest stock market news and analysis. From market futures to live price updates CNBC is the leader in business news worldwide.

Connect with CNBC News Online

#CNBC
#CNBC TV

[Isalala]

Gee! the Supreme court deciding on the behalf of large powerful perfectly predictable.

[georgelux]

Let's make sure that corporations can own this country completely.

[pfpublius]

All this because Trump wants to put a payday loan CEO in that seat....does anyone really think that's gonna work out well?

[knatt]

Sounds like more dismantling of the consumer's rights and protections in favor of big company/business.

[JAWZMUZIK]

Remember everybody... WE ARE THE BOSS, no matter what. We can put any Corporation out of business we choose by simply directing our spending power away from them.

[yvonneeiland]

This is why we march it's also why we must #VOTE to #RemoveTrump the Russian Trojan Horse

[sirbruce]

This was a good decision by the SCOTUS!
Every President should have the right to add and remove as He or She sees fit.
This works in favor of ANY president serving from this point forward.
If there are more of these infrastructure violations, remove them too! Now we have a SCOTUS ruling to refer to on these matters.

[oldwoman]

What else can we expect from a fascist court majority?

[thealaskapirate]

LOCK TRUMP UP!! LOCK TRUMP UP!! LOCK TRUMP UP!!

[jeskoog]

Brush on your Russian. We're going to need it.

[goedelite]

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review is not itself constitutional. It was a power assumed by the Court under its first Chief Justice, John Marshall, in a rather arbitrary way: as I recall, in the case of an appointment by a preceding President, his successor did not allow the delivery of its commission to one Marbury, who sued for a mandamus by the Court to force the President to make delivery. Marshall opined that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to compel the delivery because the law which gave it such authority was in conflict with the Constitution. He struck down that authority given to the Court by the mandamus provision of the law, declaring the Court powerless to force the delivery. By declaring the Court powerless in this matter, he actually gave the Court a more sweeping power, the power to decide what accords with Constitution and what violates it. Congress accepted that decision, though it need not have. Congress could have insisted that only Congress can decide what violates the Constitution and the Court must issue a mandamus to the President to deliver the commission to Marbury. Though it is reasonable, as was argued, that with a written Constitution some authority must be able to decide that a law violates the Constitution, that authority - not specified in the Constitution - must be the Congress rather than the Supreme Court.
With the Supreme Court as the decider of constitutionality, there is the danger of the Court's legislating "from the bench", as is said.
With the Congress as the decider, there is the danger that Congress will re-write the Constitution through its reviews of constitutionality as politically convenient.
Which is the greater danger? Has the Supreme Court's power of judicial review promoted the nation's general welfare and liberties of our people, or has it hindered them? Would Congress have done better?

[stenbak]

Free business fine but no bailouts ever again

[solarray]

The blonde chick gives good face - spectacular!

[webdeuce]

Time to throw the American avg Joe under the bus .... the quality of the bus will be checked by Trump not CFPB ....

[pantslesswrock]

How is it 2020 and they haven't fixed the delay yet?

[dissociativecat]

For those whining about Trump they did say any president democrat or republican

[MC-kxpn]

Furthering hurting the average American

[shadowofpain]

Consumer protection. Cant have that wait till the cdo clo repeat takes every dream america ever had.

[mikeyberk]

How can we people be OK with this? And who would even like this video... shame!

[livegoldxauusdsignal]

USDCAD today analyse
Tenken-Sen- 1.36718
Kijun-Sen- 1.36008
USDCAD recovered more than 70 pips on a slight jump in the US dollar.