| Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 3, 2020 Decided June 29, 2020 | |
| Full case name | Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau |
| Docket no. | 19-7 |
| Citations | 591 U.S. ___ (more) 140 S. Ct. 2183 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 923 F.3d 680 (9th Cir. 2019), affirming Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, No. 8:17-cv-01081-JLS-JEM, 2017 WL 6536586 (C.D. Cal. 2017) |
| Holding | |
| The CFPB’s leadership by a single individual removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts (Parts I, II, and III), joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh |
| Plurality | Roberts (Part IV), joined by Alito, Kavanaugh |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch |
| Concur/dissent | Kagan (concurring in the judgment with respect to severability and dissenting in part), joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., Art. II, §2, cl. 2 Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act | |
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. ____ (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.
The Court recognized that the president may generally remove officers at will. However, the Court stated there were two exceptions to this rule. First, the president's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question is a member of an agency that shares similar characteristics to the Federal Trade Commission as discussed in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). Second, Congress may constrain the president's removal power over "inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking" role as discussed in Morrison v. Olson (1988). The Court declined to extend the exceptions to "an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power."
The Court also held that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search