Page 13 - Cfpb News Today

What took place this week in the credit card and payment industries

The Supreme Court's justices seemed to be hesitant to upend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) which is currently facing a Constitutional challenge.

The case to dismantle the CFPB ran into a hammer from the three liberal justices and marked skepticism from at least two of the conservatives.

Tuesday’s battle over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the first in a string of Supreme Court cases this term that could dramatically reel in bureaucratic power. The court is taking on the authority of federal agencies in earnest this term, with several high-profile arguments implicating the administrative state still to come. Among the…

After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers from things like excessive and predatory fees. But a new case before the US Supreme Court could gut the CFPB.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court's most recent appointee, expressed concerns Tuesday about the judiciary becoming a "super legislature" in a key case centering on reining in the administrative state.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday began hearing a series of cases that could result in a generational contraction in the power of federal agencies to regulate businesses and corporate fraud.

There have been myriad abuses in the auto loan business in recent years.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case that will determine the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. For years, conservatives and libertarians have been arguing that the bureau is unconstitutionally constituted — and not just in terms of the original setup that made it functionally impossible to fire its director, but in its funding structure.

The brainchild of Elizabeth Warren and a product of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is fighting for its life against a court case brought by payday lenders that argue its funding structure is not constitutional.