Photo of Jesse Silverman

Jesse Silverman

Subscribe to Jesse Silverman's Posts

Jesse provides practical and business-minded advice to clients in the financial services sector. With senior in-house and both state and federal government experience, he helps clients mitigate potential risks throughout their business cycle.

Contact:Read more about Jesse Silverman

On November 24, the plaintiffs in National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) filed a motion to clarify the existing injunction, asking the court to confirm that the CFPB may not justify noncompliance by declining to request funds from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) and that “combined earnings” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) refers to the Federal Reserve System’s total earnings, not a net figure reduced by interest expense. In response, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a minute order directing the parties to file submissions by November 26 identifying which provisions of the preliminary injunction they believe remain in force and addressing the court’s authority to enforce those provisions in light of the D.C. Circuit’s August 15 opinion and the pending petition for rehearing en banc.

On November 21, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) notified staff that it will restart supervision and require examiners, beginning with the 2026 examination cycle, to open each review by reading to the supervised entity a Humility in Supervisions Pledge. The pledge signals a notable shift in tone and execution that is in line with the CFPB’s Memorandum on Supervision and Enforcement Priorities from April 2025. Specifically, examinations will now have tighter alignment to the CFPB’s statutory authority, narrower and more clearly scoped exams (with a focus on “identified priority markets”), greater transparency and predictability, and an express preference to remediate issues in Supervision rather than escalate to Enforcement. It also formalizes a renewed focus on tangible consumer harm, especially to service members, their families, and veterans, and aims to minimize duplicative oversight where states or other regulators are already active.

As reported by Law360 on November 20, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) will hand off its remaining enforcement lawsuits and other active litigation to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as the Bureau prepares for a potential funding lapse. CFPB staff were informed that DOJ will begin assuming matters from the CFPB’s enforcement and legal divisions in the coming weeks, with transfer logistics to be worked out. It remains unclear whether all pending cases will survive the transition or whether case schedules and continuity will be affected.

Yesterday, President Trump nominated Stuart Levenbach, an energy official at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to serve a five-year term as permanent director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Levenbach’s experience is in natural resources and energy policy rather than financial regulation, and he would inherit an agency facing profound uncertainty after months of leadership turmoil, enforcement retrenchment, and dwindling finances.

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) notified the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit in the matter of National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) anticipates exhausting its currently available funds in early 2026. The filing attaches a November 7 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) to Acting Director Vought concluding that the CFPB’s statutory funding stream — quarterly transfers from the “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” under 12 U.S.C. § 5497(a)(1) — is unavailable while the Federal Reserve operates at a loss. The Bureau expects to continue operating, including in compliance with an existing district court injunction, through at least December 31, 2025, but absent congressional action may face a funding lapse thereafter, which would trigger Antideficiency Act constraints.

On October 29, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) officially rescinded its rule requiring nonbank entities to register certain agency and court orders with the Bureau. This decision follows a proposal made earlier this year (discussed here), which highlighted concerns about the regulatory burden and costs imposed on nonbank entities, which could ultimately affect consumers.

On October 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) issued a new interpretive rule replacing its 2022 interpretive rule (withdrawn in May 2025) concerning the scope of preemption under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This new interpretive rule clarifies that the FCRA broadly preempts state laws related to consumer reporting, reinforcing Congress’s intent to establish national standards when information is used to determine a consumer’s eligibility for credit, insurance, employment and the like. This move replaces the previous rule, which was criticized for its potential to create regulatory confusion.

On September 29, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) announced significant modifications to the proposed regulations under the Digital Financial Assets Law (DFAL) and the Money Transmission Act (MTA). These changes are part of an ongoing effort to refine the regulatory framework governing digital financial assets and ensure clarity in the application of these laws.

On August 29, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced updates to its Consumer Compliance Examination Manual, marking a pivotal shift in how potential discrimination under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Fair Housing Act will be evaluated. The FDIC will now focus solely on evidence of disparate treatment, removing all references to disparate impact analysis from its examination procedures. This action follows on the heels of the OCC’s announcement on July 14 that it had removed all references to disparate impact analysis from the Fair Lending booklet of the Comptroller’s Handbook and directed examiners to cease examining banks for disparate impact liability, discussed here.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is taking a significant step to modify its supervisory approach to nonbanks by publishing a proposed rule advancing a more stringent definition of “risks to consumers” in the context of § 1024(a)(1)(C) of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) when designating nonbanks for supervision. This move aims to limit the Bureau’s oversight of nonbanks to cases where there is a high likelihood of significant harm to consumers, thereby narrowing the scope of its supervisory authority.