Photo of Misha Tseytlin

Misha is a leading appellate attorney with an accomplished track record before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeal, and state courts. He is a nationally recognized authority on administrative law and political law issues.

On September 8, a federal court in the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) and several other trade associations, holding that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) “March 2022 manual update is beyond the agency’s constitutional authority based on an Appropriations Clause violation

Please join Troutman Pepper Partners Chris Willis and Misha Tseytlin as they discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision to review Loper Bright Enterprises v. Sec. of Commerce, which will consider the question of whether to overrule Chevron deference for agency interpretations of statutes. Chris and Misha discuss what may happen if Chevron deference is overruled, either in whole or in part, including how this may affect pending lower court cases, the potential impact on future Administrative Procedure Act cases, and the implications for agency rulemakings that may have relied on Chevron deference when promulgated.

On May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, on the question of whether to overturn or limit Chevron deference, the controversial doctrine that requires courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of law under certain circumstances. The Court overruling or limiting Chevron would constitute a

On April 14, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in related cases, Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Cochran, holding that constitutional challenges to the agencies’ structures can proceed directly in federal district court before raising them in administrative hearings before the agencies. The

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) petition for certiorari in Community Financial Services Association of America Ltd. (CFSA) v. CFPB, a case that could decide once and for all whether the funding mechanism for the Bureau is constitutional. The order list does not specify which

As discussed here, on September 8, 2022, an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision that a debt collector’s outsourcing of its letter process to a third-party mail vendor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s prohibition on third-party disclosure. The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case

As discussed here, on October 19, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) funding mechanism violates the appropriations clause because the CFPB does not receive its funding from annual congressional appropriations like most executive agencies, but instead receives funding directly from the Federal

Do district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to federal agencies, or must plaintiffs first raise such challenges in administrative proceedings before the agency? On November 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on this issue in two similar cases: Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) v.

Please join Consumer Financial Services Partner Chris Willis and his colleague Partner Misha Tseytlin to discuss the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, what may happen next and when, and the ruling’s practical impact on the consumer finance industry. As noted in our October 20 blog about the CFSA case, a Fifth Circuit panel found the funding mechanism for the CFPB to be unconstitutional.

In a much anticipated decision released September 8, an en banc panel of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision that a debt collector’s outsourcing of its letter process to a third-party mail vendor violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act’s (FDCPA) prohibition on third-party disclosure and ruled that plaintiff Hunstein