Today, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) in light of recent changes within the Bureau’s leadership.

As previously reported, the litigation centers on the CFPB’s Final Rule issued on March 5, 2024, which amended 12 C.F.R. § 1026.52(b) to reduce the safe harbor for late fees from $30 for the first missed payment and $41 for subsequent late payments (within six billing cycles) to $8, and prohibited adjustments for inflation. The plaintiffs, including the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, challenged this rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that it exceeded the CFPB’s statutory authority under the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD Act).

As discussed here, in December 2024, the court denied the CFPB’s motions to dismiss the Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, transfer the case to the District of Columbia, and dissolve the preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, emphasizing that the CFPB’s cost-based approach to late fees was inconsistent with the CARD Act’s mandate for “penalty fees” that are “reasonable and proportional” to the violation.

Today’s Order

Judge Mark T. Pittman issued an order in response to the CFPB’s recent internal changes. The order acknowledges the new leadership within the CFPB and their instruction to employees to cease “all supervision and examination activity” and “all stakeholder engagement.” This directive was reported by The New York Times on February 9, 2025.

Given these developments, the court has ordered the CFPB to file a status report within 30 days, explaining how it plans to proceed in this case.

Our Take

This order adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing litigation. The CFPB’s new leadership and their directive to halt certain activities may impact the Bureau’s approach to defending the Final Rule. The status report will be crucial in determining the next steps in this case, and may in all likelihood provide clues as to such new leadership’s emerging general approach to dealing with legal challenges to its rulemaking and/or other activities.