Photo of Stefanie Jackman

Stefanie takes a holistic approach to working with clients both through compliance counseling and assessment relating to consumer products and services, as well as serving as a zealous advocate in government inquiries, investigations, and consumer litigation.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order temporarily halting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB or Bureau) mass layoffs. The court granted an emergency motion to enforce or clarify its previous order, reinstating the preliminary injunction that prevents the CFPB from executing reductions in force (RIFs).

At an emergency hearing this morning in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, Judge Amy Berman Jackson once again halted the layoffs of over 1,000 employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The judge emphasized the need for a comprehensive record to determine whether the firings complied with the D.C. Circuit’s order from last week (discussed here).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) is undergoing significant changes as the Trump administration implements sweeping layoffs just days after revising the Bureau’s regulatory priorities. According to reports, approximately 1,400-1,500 employees have received reduction-in-force notices, leaving the CFPB with just over 200 personnel to carry out its regulatory activities. This drastic reduction raises critical questions about the agency’s ability to effectively focus on its newly outlined priorities for 2025.

This article was republished on insideARM on April 22, 2025.

Yesterday, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) released a memo to staff outlining its new supervision and enforcement priorities for 2025.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) agreed to vacate its controversial credit card late fee rule in a joint motion for entry of consent judgment filed in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. CFPB yesterday. This significant move comes after the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the rule likely violated the Credit Card Accountability and Disclosure Act (CARD Act). The consent judgment marks a pivotal resolution in the case, with the CFPB acknowledging that the rule failed to allow card issuers to impose penalty fees that are “reasonable and proportional” to violations, as required by the CARD Act.

On April 11, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an order partially staying the district court’s preliminary injunction in the ongoing legal dispute between the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This decision marks a significant development in the NTEU’s challenge against Acting Director Russell Vought’s actions, which the union claims are unconstitutional and violate the Dodd-Frank Act. The appellate court’s order addresses several key provisions of the district court’s injunction, setting the stage for an expedited appeal process.

On April 9, the House of Representatives passed two Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolutions aimed at nullifying certain Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) rules finalized in the final days of the Biden-Harris Administration. These resolutions, S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, target rules related to limiting the overdraft fees that may be charged by large financial institutions, and extending supervisory authority over certain providers of digital payments services, respectively. The CRA resolutions are now before President Trump for signature.

As federal agencies pull back on consumer protection regulations under the Trump administration, California is stepping up to fill the void. This shift was forecasted in January, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a report titled “Strengthening State-Level Consumer Protections” (discussed here), which provided a roadmap for states looking to bolster their consumer protection laws after the anticipated rollback with the new administration.

On March 28, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) was ordered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to reinstate its employees and resume its operations. This decision comes after the CFPB allegedly attempted to shut down its activities, leading to the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) filing a lawsuit questioning the legality of the shutdown. The court held that the CFPB’s actions to halt its operations and terminate its employees were not consistent with its statutory obligations under Title X of Dodd-Frank. As a result, the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the CFPB to reverse its shutdown efforts, reinstate its workforce, and continue performing its statutory duties. On March 29, the Bureau filed its notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.