The U.S. Supreme Court entered an order yesterday in Seila Law inviting Paul D. Clement “to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below on the question presented by the petition.” The question presented is whether the Bureau’s single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure is constitutional. CFPB Director Kathleen Kraninger adopted the Trump administrationâs position that she serves at the will of the president, and that the CFPBâs structure is unconstitutional. Paul Clement argues that Seila Law and the CFPB have turned the case into a hypothetical question of removal based on underlying facts which do not involve removal at all. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in October. Circuit. Clement points out that Article III of the Constitution prohibits courts from taking abstract inquiries, so … CFPB, Federal Agencies, State Agencies, and Attorneys GeneralWith both the DOJ and CFPB agreeing with Seila Law’s position that the Bureau’s structure is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court was expected to appoint an A former Solicitor General in the George W. Bush administration and law clerk to Justice Scalia, Mr. Clement is held in high regard for his skill as a Supreme Court advocate. âThe fact that the court has so long upheld these for-cause removal provisions, I think the legitimacy of the court should be on his mind,â Gorod said. Clement says the court should find that the CFPB is constitutional. Clement, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP partner Kannon Shanmugam, representing Seila Law, and the Trump administration will each have 20 minutes to present their arguments. The single director has more authority than even a commission chair, who has to get a majority of members for any policy or enforcement move. The case is Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, U.S., 19-7, Oral Arguments 3/3/20To contact the editors responsible for this story: Oct 28 2019: Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Oct 28 2019 Clement, the former solicitor general tapped by the Supreme Court to defend the CFPBâs constitutionality, is set to argue Tuesday that Clementâs briefing papers question whether a CFPB civil investigative demand at the center of Seila Lawâs challenge is the right kind of case to potentially overturn decades of Supreme Court precedent regarding leadership at independent federal agencies. Clementâs argument about the Seila Law caseâs inappropriateness is two-fold.He said that the CFPBâs structure and the presidentâs inability to fire the director at will have no bearing on the investigative demand the CFPB levied against Seila Law.
âItâs prohibitively unlikelyâ that the Supreme Court would invalidate the entire agency, Cordray said.