As we have previously reported, the litigation over the attempted shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) has continued to move quickly through the courts. By way of background, the D.C. district court had granted a preliminary injunction requiring the CFPB to reverse its shutdown efforts, reinstate its workforce, and continue performing its statutory duties, finding that Acting Director Russell Vought’s actions were inconsistent with the Bureau’s statutory obligations under Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act. In our August 2025 post, we covered the D.C. Circuit panel’s decision vacating that preliminary injunction, holding that most of the National Treasury Employees Union’s (NTEU) claims belonged in the Civil Service Reform Act regime and that the remaining claims did not target reviewable final agency action. In our December 2025 post, we reported on the full court’s decision to grant rehearing en banc, vacate the panel’s judgment, and set an expedited briefing schedule. With the panel decision vacated, the en banc court took up the case with the partial stay continuing to govern the parties’ conduct in the interim.

On June 19, 2026, the en banc D.C. Circuit issued its latest order, taking three notable actions:

Limited Remand to the District Court

The court granted the CFPB’s motion for a limited remand, directing the district court to decide in the first instance whether to modify, suspend, or dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of two developments: (1) the CFPB’s issuance of a revised reduction-in-force (RIF) plan, and (2) other intervening developments identified in the CFPB’s motion. Notably, NTEU did not oppose the remand for this purpose. The scope of the remand is expressly limited, i.e., the district court may consider only those intervening developments identified in the CFPB’s motion.

The revised RIF plan would reduce the Bureau’s workforce to roughly 556 employees (a significant reduction from the approximately 1,174 current employees). The plan would concentrate its deepest cuts in the supervision, enforcement, and operations divisions.

Denial of a 45-Day Time Limit

The CFPB had requested that the remand be subject to a 45-day deadline, which NTEU opposed. The court declined to impose that limit, noting the district court’s track record of moving expeditiously throughout this litigation and expressing confidence that it would continue to do so on remand. The district court is requested to notify the en banc court promptly upon deciding the remanded issues.

Appeal Held in Abeyance

The court also granted the CFPB’s unopposed motion to hold the appeal in abeyance while the district court addresses the remanded questions. Critically, the en banc court is retaining jurisdiction over the appeal. Once the district court rules, the parties will have 21 days to file motions governing future proceedings before the en banc court — absent further direction from the court.

It is worth noting that four judges would have waited until the en banc court resolved the pending legal questions before remanding, signaling that there remains disagreement among the judges about the appropriate sequencing of proceedings.

What’s Next

The district court will now take up the question of whether the CFPB’s revised RIF plan and other intervening developments warrant any modification, suspension, or dissolution of the existing preliminary injunction. That ruling will shape the landscape when the appeal returns to the en banc court. The broader legal questions, including whether CFPB employees may pursue their claims in district court and whether courts may grant injunctive relief to prevent effective dismantlement of the Bureau, remain pending before the full court.

We will continue to monitor the district court proceedings on remand and any further orders from the en banc court.