On December 17, New Jersey announced its adoption of what its Attorney General is calling the “most comprehensive state-level disparate impact regulations in the country.” Effective December 15, 2025, the Division on Civil Rights’ (DCR) new rules under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) codify guidance on disparate impact discrimination across housing, lending, employment, places of public accommodation, and contracting.
As we discussed in our prior post on National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), on August 15 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a decision vacating the district court’s preliminary injunction, which had previously restricted the CFPB’s actions to halt the Bureau’s operations and terminate its employees. The court of appeals held that most of the employees’ claims belonged in the Civil Service Reform Act regime and that the remaining claims did not target reviewable final agency action or equitable claims.
In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, host Chris Willis is joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Partner Lori Sommerfield and Charles River Associates VP and Practice Leader of Financial Economics Marsha Courchane to discuss the current administration’s “debanking” initiative established through Executive Order 14331. They discuss key actions taken by federal agencies to implement it, expectations for financial institutions and small business lenders to conduct internal reviews, regulatory reporting deadlines, and consequences for noncompliance. This episode also features practical tips on tools and technology that institutions/small business lenders can use to facilitate conducting debanking reviews and highlights the tension between the debanking initiative and financial institutions’ need to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other federal anti-money laundering laws.
On December 11, the White House issued an Executive Order (EO) titled Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (AI). The EO states a federal policy to sustain and enhance U.S. AI leadership through a minimally burdensome national policy framework and to limit conflicting state requirements. It directs rapid actions by multiple federal entities to evaluate, challenge, or preempt state AI laws viewed as inconsistent with that policy and to use federal funding and standard-setting to influence state approaches.
On December 10, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released preliminary findings from its supervisory review of “debanking” activities at the nine largest national banks. The objective of the review was to determine whether the banks debanked or discriminated against any customers or potential customers on the basis of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. The review, which was required to be completed by the OCC and other federal banking agencies by December 5 pursuant to Executive Order 14331 (Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans), covers the period 2020–2025.
In two recent litigation status reports, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) indicated that it is working to issue interim final rules for both Section 1071 and Section 1033 in light of an opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluding that the Bureau cannot lawfully draw funds from the Federal Reserve Board at this time. Specifically, as discussed here, the OLC concluded that the Federal Reserve System presently has no “combined earnings” from which the CFPB may lawfully draw funds under the Dodd‑Frank Act, and the CFPB has publicly stated it anticipates having sufficient funds to continue normal operations through at least December 31, 2025.
Three nonprofit organizations have filed a complaint in the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent what they describe as a de facto shutdown of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). Their suit targets Acting Director Russell Vought’s refusal to request funding for the Bureau from the Federal Reserve Board (Fed), arguing that Congress designed a statutory provision that provides stable, standing appropriation to support the CFPB’s mission and that the Director’s recent interpretation of the statute — which is being used to support the refusal to request funding — unlawfully cuts off those funds. The plaintiffs ask the court to compel the CFPB to fulfill its statutory duty by requesting funding immediately.
On November 25, the House Financial Services Committee majority staff published Operation Chokepoint 2.0: Biden’s Debanking of Digital Assets, a detailed account of how, in the Committee’s view, federal prudential regulators between 2021 and early 2025 discouraged banks from serving lawful digital asset businesses through informal guidance, supervisory posture, and enforcement.
As reported by Bloomberg, the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA) has hired Rohit Chopra, former Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), to lead a new Consumer Protection and Affordability Working Group within DAGA’s policy arm. The move was announced as a coordinated, state-led response to rising living costs and widespread fraud, with a policy agenda that spans financial services, technology, and health care.
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.