Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

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.

In a surprising turn of events, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau) and Townstone Financial, Inc. (Townstone) have jointly moved to vacate the Stipulated Final Judgment and Order previously entered in the CFPB’s enforcement action against the mortgage lender alleging redlining practices. This motion, filed on March 26, 2025, comes after significant allegations by the CFPB regarding the Bureau’s own handling of the case, which began in 2020 under the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration.

On March 7, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSA) and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to overturn a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit held that in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the President’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. The petitioners argue that this standard is unreasonably burdensome and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen.

In a significant development in the credit card late fee rule litigation, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has filed a status report indicating that it is actively working towards a resolution. This update follows last month’s court’s order, which required the CFPB to explain its plans for proceeding with the case.

In a move that could significantly impact the auto retail industry, California has introduced Senate Bill 766, known as the California Combating Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Act. Introduced by Senator Benjamin Allen (D) on February 21, this bill aims to impose stringent new regulations on auto dealers in the state, many of which echo back to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) own CARS Rule.

This article was republished in insideARM on February 20, 2025.

As discussed here, on February 9, the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which includes members employed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau), filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit challenges the actions of Acting Director Russell Vought, arguing that his efforts to “shut down” the CFPB are unconstitutional and violate the Congressional mandate outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act. Since then, President Trump has nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the CFPB (discussed here). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting Director Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget.

On February 11, President Donald Trump nominated Jonathan McKernan to be the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). If confirmed by the Senate, McKernan will replace Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought, who also serves as the head of the Office of Management and Budget. McKernan was reportedly on the Trump administration’s short list of potential candidates to lead the CFPB and is considered an ally of the financial services industry.