NEW: SCOTUS Finds CFPB Funding Constitutional, 7-2

Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the Bureau’s funding meets these requirements. We therefore conclude that the Bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause. ...

Advertisement

The associations’ challenge turns solely on whether the Bureau’s funding mechanism constitutes an “Appropriatio[n] made by Law.” This question divided the courts below. The District Court concluded that a valid appropriation is nothing more than a statute that “authorizes an agency to receive funds up to a certain cap.” 558 F. Supp. 3d, at 364; see also Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, 63 F. 4th 174, 181 (CA2 2023). The Court of Appeals, on the other hand, suggested that appropriations must also “meet the Framers’ salutary aims of separating and checking powers and preserving accountability to the people.” 51 F. 4th, at 640. The associations defend this understanding and argue that the statute that provides the Bureau’s funding undermines these aims by allowing the agency to indefinitely choose its own level of annual funding, subject only to an illusory cap. That is, the associations contend that the Bureau’s funding mechanism is too open-ended in duration and amount to satisfy the requirement that there be an “Appropriatio[n] made by Law.”

Advertisement

Based on the Constitution’s text, the history against which that text was enacted, and congressional practice immediately following ratification, we conclude that appropriations need only identify a source of public funds and authorize the expenditure of those funds for designated purposes to satisfy the Appropriations Clause. 

Ed Morrissey

The result isn't as surprising as the split. It's not often one finds Clarence Thomas writing for a majority that includes the three liberal justices and leaves Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch as dissenters. 

Essentially, Thomas concludes that since Congress authorized the Federal Reserve funding system for the CFPB, that's sufficient to satisfy the Appropriations Clause. I disagree, since that transfers funding decisions to a supposedly independent body that acts much more in an executive-branch capacity. Alito has the better argument here, but unfortunately, it didn't sway even their fellow conservatives. 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on HotAir Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement