Columbus, OH – The Buckeye Institute filed an amicus brief on Monday in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in the Supreme Court of the United States.  The case raises important questions about the power of the unelected administrative state and the blatantly unconstitutional structure of the CFPB.

“The autonomy and power given to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) director clearly violates the separation of powers that our constitution demands,” said Robert Alt, president and chief executive officer of The Buckeye Institute. “If the Supreme Court invalidates the challenged unlawful regulatory action taken by the CFPB, it doesn’t need to pull out a crystal ball to divine which parts of the law Congress would have enacted if it knew about this decision, but rather should leave the lawmaking to Congress.”

Seila Law v. CFBP started in 2017 when the CFPB demanded information from the California-based law firm. Seila Law objected to the CFPB demand based on the unconstitutionality of the CFPB’s structure.

# # #

UPDATE: June 29, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Buckeye’s position and ruled that the CFPB's leadership by a single director removable only for inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance violates the separation of powers.