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).

Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order titled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy.” This order aims to eliminate the use of disparate impact liability in all contexts, emphasizing the importance of treating all citizens equally under the law and promoting a merit-based, colorblind society.

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.