Photo of Misha Tseytlin

Misha Tseytlin

Subscribe to Misha Tseytlin's Posts

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.

Contact:Read more about Misha Tseytlin

In a shocking development yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a per-curiam, single-sentence order purporting to “clarify” its prior stay of the compliance date for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) payday loan rule. The new order provides that the rule will go into effect on March 30, 2025, 286 days after the Supreme Court entered its judgment in the CFSA lawsuit and not 286 days after the Fifth Circuit’s subsequent decision not to rehear the case en banc. The new order does not even attempt an explanation on how it conforms with the earlier order that the rule would be stayed “until 286 days after resolution of the appeal.”

On November 18, the plaintiff trade groups in Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd.(CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an Opposed Motion for Clarification of Stay Pending Appeal asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to clarify that its stay of the compliance date for the CFPB’s payday loan rule extends until the time for filing a new petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court has expired or, if the petition is filed, until the Supreme Court finally disposes of the case. At a minimum, the trade groups ask the Fifth Circuit to clarify that its existing stay expires 286 days after the court’s recent issuance of its mandate (that is, August 25, 2025) and not on March 30, 2025.

In this episode of The Consumer Finance Podcast, Chris Willis is joined by Partners David Dove and Misha Tseytlin to revisit the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Loper Bright, which overruled the long-standing Chevron doctrine of court deference to agency interpretations of statutes. The discussion delves into the practical implications of this decision for federal and state regulations, the potential for increased litigation, and the nuanced impact on ongoing and future agency actions. The episode provides valuable insights for businesses and legal practitioners navigating the post-Chevron regulatory landscape.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo overruling the Chevron doctrine. This decision marks a watershed moment in administrative law, fundamentally altering the landscape for judicial review of agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited (CFSA) v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) holding that the CFPB’s special funding structure does not violate the appropriations clause of the Constitution. The 7-2 majority held the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides the CFPB’s funding structure, satisfies the appropriations clause because it “authorizes the Bureau to draw public funds from a particular source — ‘the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System’ — in an amount not exceeding an inflation-adjusted cap. And it specifies the objects for which the Bureau can use those funds — to ‘pay the expenses of the Bureau in carrying out its duties and responsibilities.’” The Supreme Court further found that the “Bureau’s funding mechanism [] fits comfortably within the historical appropriations practice …” Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the decision.

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…