Page 14 - Cfpb News Today

Senator Elizabeth Warren told Yahoo Finance Wednesday that if the CFPB's funding structure is nullified, it would "touch the lives of everybody in this country."

No love lost here.

The Supreme Court debated on Wednesday whether people with disabilities can sue hotels for failure to disclose accessibility information on commercial websites even if a litigant has no intention to make a reservation.

Is there any ceiling, or floor, to what the CFPB can decide to spend?

Analysts speculate on the consequences of the potential ruling

A ruling against the agency in a case now before the court would “likely throw the economy into recession,” financial scholars argued.

When the Supreme Court ruled against the federal agency that protects consumers from financial scams in 2020, it let the agency keep operating, opting for “a scalpel rather than a bulldozer in curing the constitutional defect.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Tuesday to hear a challenge to the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a consumer watchdog established after the 2008 global financial crisis, in the first of several cases during its new term that could curb the power of federal agencies. President Joe Biden's administration is appealing a lower court's ruling that found that the CFPB's funding design - drawing money each year from the Federal Reserve instead of ...

The Supreme Court justices at oral arguments Tuesday appeared hesitant to upend the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) by finding the agency’s funding mechanism unconstitutional. The case marks one of the biggest legal threats to the CFPB since its inception just over a decade ago, but the high court’s liberals and several conservatives voiced skepticism…

The Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America fell along familiar lines. One side said it had the weight of text and historical practice dating back to the early republic behind its legal reasoning. The other side offered mostly policy-based arguments for its position, asking the justices to read something into the Constitution that wasn’t explicitly there. The only twist was which side was making w...