InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Trump Administration Given March 17 Filing Date for Amicus Brief in PHH v CFPB; Requests to Intervene by Outside Organizations Denied by D.C. Circuit
On March 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the United States’ unopposed motion, filed through the Office of the Solicitor General (“SG”), which requested an extension to file its amicus brief in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Notably, amicus briefs supporting PHH must be filed by March 10 and those supporting the CFPB must be filed by March 31. The fact that the United States’ motion requested an extension until March 17—before the deadline for briefs supporting the CFPB—signals that the SG may present arguments supporting PHH that differ both from the CFPB and from the positions previously presented by the Obama Administration in briefing submitted on behalf of the United States back in December.
As previously covered in InfoBytes, late last year the D.C. Circuit invited briefing by the SG’s office on behalf of the United States (note that the SG does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The then Obama-led SG’s office took the position that the case should be reheard by the en banc court because, among other reasons, (i) the majority’s reasoning misapplied Supreme Court precedent on separation of powers issues and/or (ii) the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue. Now under the Trump Administration, the DOJ hinted that it may revise its positions with respect to both the constitutionality of the CFPB’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure, and, if it chooses, the merits of PHH’s argument that the Bureau’s RESPA interpretation was incorrect. Indeed, the short motion asserted, among other things, that “the views of the United States on matters involving the President’s removal power are not always entirely congruent with the views of independent agencies.”
Also on March 7, the D.C. Circuit issued a separate order denying three pending “motions and alternative requests” seeking to intervene, or in the alternative, hold in abeyance requests to intervene submitted by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, 16 State Attorneys General, a coalition of consumer interest groups, and two conservative advocacy groups working with State National Bank of Big Spring.
CFPB Temporarily Enjoined from Naming Company Under Investigation
On February 17, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an Order granting in part a motion filed by a unnamed "John Doe" recipient of a CFPB civil investigative demand (CID) for an injunction preventing the Bureau from disclosing its identity pending its petition to the Court of Appeals for a stay of the CID. Specifically, Judge Contreras ordered that: “Defendants are ENJOINED, until March 3, 2017” from “publicly disclosing the identify of Plaintiff John Doe Company, by taking actions including, but not limited to, the public filing of either the civil investigative demand . . . or the Director’s Decision and Order [denying] Plaintiff’s Petition" to set aside the CID.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the John Doe company filed an action against the CFPB back in January seeking to enjoin the Bureau from, among other things, disclosing the existence of an investigation and taking any action against the company unless and until the CFPB is constitutionally structured. The company argued, among other things, that the agency should not be able to identify it as the target of an investigation as publication of the company’s name would bring “irreparable harm” as it tries to defend itself against any enforcement action. Immediately following the District Court's ruling against the company, it lawyers filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to try to stop the agency from moving forward.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Called for End of CFPB; Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Responds
In a February 10 blog post, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling called for the abolition of the CFPB, and recommended that the President “immediately fire CFPB Director Richard Cordray.” Specifically, Rep. Hensarling expressed his belief that the CFPB is “arguably the most powerful, least accountable agency in U.S. history,” and his concern that the agency “defines its own powers and can launch investigations without cause, imposing virtually any fine or remedy, devoid of due process.” For these reasons, Rep. Hensarling stated he believes that “even with good policy, the CFPB would still be unconstitutional.” Ultimately, he argued that the CFPB “must be functionally terminated,” which he said could be achieved by ending the Bureau’s funding through a reconciliation bill.
The same day, Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Sherrod Brown issued a statement responding to Rep. Hensarling’s proposal to abolish the Dodd-Frank Act. Senator Brown’s response noted, among other things, that “71 percent of Americans approve of the [CFPB]’s mission,” and that “[t]he Hensarling proposal would transform the Bureau from an effective watchdog into a toy poodle.”
Special Alert: D.C. Circuit Grants Petition For Rehearing in PHH v. CFPB; Vacates Judgment Based on Bureau’s Unconstitutionality
Buckley Sandler Special Alert
On February 16, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted the CFPB’s petition for rehearing en banc of the October 2015 panel decision in CFPB v. PHH Corporation. Among other things, the panel decision declared the Bureau’s single-Director structure unconstitutional and would have allowed the President to remove the CFPB’s Director at will rather than “for cause” as set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of the petition for rehearing being granted, the panel’s judgment is vacated and the full D.C. Circuit will hear PHH’s appeal of the $109 million penalty imposed by the CFPB under the anti-kickback provisions of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Oral argument is scheduled for May 24, 2017.
As discussed in detail in our prior alert, the October panel decision unanimously concluded that the CFPB misinterpreted RESPA, violated due process by disregarding prior interpretations of the statute and applying its own interpretation retroactively, and failed to abide by RESPA’s three-year statute of limitations. However, only two of the three judges on the panel concluded that the CFPB’s status as an independent agency headed by a single Director violated the separation of powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. The third panel member, Judge Henderson, dissented from this portion of the opinion on the grounds that it was not necessary to reach the constitutional issue because the panel was already reversing the CFPB’s penalty on other grounds.
Click here to read full special alert
* * *
If you have questions about the decision or other related issues, visit our Consumer Financial Protection Bureau practice for more information, or contact a BuckleySandler attorney with whom you have worked in the past.
**UPDATE** PHH v. CFPB
On January 27, PHH filed a scheduled response brief to views briefed last month by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Obama, likely bringing to a close the parties’ briefing of the CFPB’s petition for en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. Also on January 27, PHH separately filed a (less significant) brief, opposing the recent-filed motion to intervene on the CFPB’s behalf submitted by 17 Attorneys General.
As previously covered on InfoBytes, late last year the Court invited briefing by President Obama’s DOJ on behalf of the United States. (Note that the DOJ does not represent the CFPB; the Bureau is legally permitted to litigate on its own behalf.) The DOJ’s brief focused on the constitutional issue (without wading into the RESPA rulings), and argued that the en banc court should either (i) review the panel’s majority holding that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional because the majority’s reasoning was erroneous in view of Supreme Court precedent, or (ii) review and simply adopt the dissenting panelist’s view that because the panel was in all events reversing the CFPB’s RESPA rulings and remanding to the CFPB on that basis, the panel majority should not have reached the constitutional issue.
In response to the DOJ, PHH argues that en banc review is unnecessary because the DOJ had only pointed to an error in the panel’s constitutional reasoning, without stating whether DOJ’s preferred mode of analysis would have led to a different result than the one reached by the panel, namely the severing of the “for cause” removal provision applicable to the CFPB Director under Dodd-Frank. PHH also contended that there is no precedent for an en banc court panel to review a panel decision just to determine whether the panel had properly reached a constitutional issue, and that in any event the panel’s decision to reach the issue was entirely proper (and therefore not worthy of review) because, as PHH’s framed the matter, the panel could not have remanded the case to an agency with a potentially unconstitutional structure.
In addition, on January 26, two other non-parties filed two motions to intervene on the CFPB’s side: (i) one by the Democratic Ranking Members of the Senate and House Committees with jurisdiction over the CFPB, Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Rep. Maxine Waters of California, respectively; and (ii) one by a coalition of interest groups, which included the Center for Responsible Lending, US PIRG, Americans for Financial Reform, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and other movants.
John Doe Lawsuit Says CFPB Action Unlawful After PHH
On January 10, a California-chartered finance company with its principal place of business in Manila, Philippines filed an action to enjoin the CFPB from, among other things, disclosing the existence of an investigation of the plaintiff and taking any action against the plaintiff unless and until the CFPB is constitutionally structured. John Doe Co. v. CFPB, D.D.C., No. 17-cv-00049 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2017). The action was prompted, in part, by the recent PHH v. CFPB decision in which the court held that the CFPB’s single director leadership structure is unconstitutional and, thus, that the agency must operate as an executive agency supervised by the President. Here, the John Doe plaintiff argues that because the CFPB has requested review of the PHH decision, the court’s remedy in regarding the CFPB’s structure has not taken effect and thus agency is operating in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, plaintiff asserts, the CFPB can take no further action against it—including publication of the CFPB’s investigation of plaintiff or initiation of enforcement action against plaintiff.
We note, that on the same day the plaintiff filed its complaint, the court issued an order reflecting its decision that the plaintiff be able to proceed in its action against the CFPB under a pseudonym. In so doing, the court noted that where a company has filed an action to protect against the government’s disclosure of its identity, it would be “counterintuitive that a court should require that same company to disclose its identity in the parallel court proceedings.” Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has given the CFPB until Jan. 25 to respond to the company’s complaint and motion to proceed under a pseudonym.
House Democrats Defend CFPB Director in Response to GOP Letter Demanding His Dismissal
On January 10, Rep. Maxine Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, and 20 Democratic panel members sent a letter to President-elect Donald Trump urging him to reject calls by Republicans to fire CFPB Director Richard Cordray. Among other things, the letter argues against “entering into a protracted – and likely unsuccessful – legal battle to oust” Director Cordray before his term expires in July 2018. Specifically, the letter “caution[s]” the President-Elect “not to engage in partisan litigation, particularly since it is likely to be unsuccessful and will needlessly divert government resources away from other important priorities.” The lawmakers contend further that removing the CFPB Director "for cause” would be an "extraordinary remedy” that is “without historical precedent,” and which “must be subjected to enhanced congressional, judicial, and public scrutiny.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, a majority of a panel of U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia concluded in October 2016 that the CFPB’s governance structure was unconstitutional, and, as a corrective measure, authorized the President to fire the Bureau’s sole Director at will—a ruling for which the Bureau now seeks rehearing en banc.
Two GOP Senators Urge Incoming Administration to Remove Director Cordray
On January 9, two GOP lawmakers sent a letter to Vice President-elect Mike Pence urging the incoming administration to remove CFPB Director Richard Cordray “promptly after [President Trump’s] inauguration.” Stating that “[i]t’s time to fire King Richard,” Sen. Ben Sasse, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Sen. Mike Lee cited the D.C. Circuit’s October 2016 decision in CFPB v. PHH to argue that, once in office, President Trump has the constitutional authority to remove Director Cordray immediately. In pushing for Director Cordray’s ouster, the Senators noted, among other things, the CFPB’s decision to move ahead in the lame-duck session with regulations of arbitration clauses and payday loans, which they consider costly and “radically opposed to the Trump administration’s pro-growth agenda.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, a majority of a panel of U.S. Circuit Court for District of Columbia concluded in October 2016 that the CFPB’s governance structure was unconstitutional, and, as a corrective measure, authorized the President to fire the Bureau’s sole Director at will—a ruling for which the Bureau now seeks rehearing en banc. In addressing this pending appeal, the Senators’ January 9 letter suggests in a footnote that, if the rehearing moves forward, the Justice Department should refrain from defending the CFPB.
PHH v CFPB Update: PHH and U.S. Solicitor General Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review
On December 22, PHH filed its brief opposing the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. PHH argued that the case is not worthy of review by the full D.C. Circuit because, although the majority of the panel determined that the CFPB’s structure violated the constitutionally-mandated separation of powers, that “conclusion, which horrifies the CFPB, simply means that an agency of the Executive Branch will be answerable to the Chief Executive.” With respect to the panel’s unanimous decision that the CFPB incorrectly interpreted RESPA, PHH argued that en banc review is inappropriate because, among other reasons, the D.C. Circuit could not side with the CFPB without “creat[ing] a circuit split with every other court to have considered the proper scope of RESPA.”
At the invitation of the D.C. Circuit, the U.S. Solicitor General also filed its brief later the same day. While the Solicitor General supported the CFPB’s petition for en banc review of the constitutional question, it also suggested that, consistent with Judge Henderson’s dissent from the panel opinion, the full D.C. Circuit could simply vacate the CFPB’s order against PHH on the grounds that the Bureau misinterpreted RESPA. Doing so, the Solicitor General notes, would be consistent with the “well-established principle … that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.” This ruling would vacate the panel majority’s conclusion that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional, although the Solicitor General noted that PHH could renew its constitutional challenge if the CFPB continues to pursue the case on remand.
With respect to the separation of powers question itself, the Solicitor General argued that en banc review is warranted because the majority departed from the analysis used by the Supreme Court to decide such questions. Specifically, the Solicitor General suggests that the panel majority erred by concluding “that an agency with a single head poses a greater threat to individual liberty than an agency headed by a multi-member body that exercises the same powers,” noting that the President’s authority over the multi-member FTC was similarly limited and the FTC enjoyed similar powers at the time the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality.
Finally, after the filing of the Solicitor General’s brief, PHH requested permission to file an additional brief on the grounds that the Solicitor General had raised arguments not presented in the CFPB’s petition.
For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision, the CFPB's petition for rehearing, and the D.C. Circuit’s order directing PHH to respond and the Solicitor General to provide views.
Full D.C. Circuit Orders PHH to Respond to CFPB's Petition for En Banc Review, Invites U.S. Solicitor General to Provide Views
On November 23, the full D.C. Circuit ordered PHH to respond to the CFPB's petition for en banc review of the October 2016 three-judge panel decision in PHH Corp. v. CFPB. The CFPB’s November 18 petition challenged, among other things, the conclusion by the majority of the panel that the CFPB's structure was unconstitutional and that, to remedy this defect, the Director must be removable at will by the President. PHH’s response, which is due by December 8, would not have been permitted without the court’s order. Similarly, the CFPB is not permitted to file a reply unless ordered by the court. Importantly, the en banc court also “invited” the U.S. Solicitor General “to file a response to the petition” to “express[] the views of the United States.” Although there is no deadline for this response, the invitation allows the Solicitor General to respond before the change in administration, which may be significant because the Dodd-Frank Act does not allow the CFPB to petition the Supreme Court for review without the approval of the Attorney General (12 USC § 5564(e)).
For additional background, please see our summaries of the panel decision and the CFPB's petition for rehearing.