(Washington) The American Supreme Court with a conservative majority validated on Thursday the method of financing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), one of these administrative agencies in the crosshairs of the most economically liberal circles.
By seven votes, those of four conservative judges and three progressives to two, the Court considered that although “different” from that of the other agencies, the method of financing the CFPB was “consistent” with the provisions of the Constitution establishing control spending by Congress.
Created after the 2008 crisis, the CFPB was authorized by Congress to set its own budget, drawn from the Federal Reserve.
An ultra-conservative federal appeals court concluded that this funding was unconstitutional, a decision overturned Thursday by the Supreme Court.
During the arguments in October, most of the nine justices expressed skepticism about the arguments against funding the CFPB.
President Joe Biden hailed in a press release “an indisputable victory for American consumers”, posing as defender of the “middle class” in the face of attacks from Republicans in favor of “special interest groups who want to continue to rip off families “.
Under his presidency, since January 2021, “the CFPB has responded by providing nearly $9 billion in support to consumers and helping to save them $20 billion per year in late fees, overdraft fees and other unwanted fees,” he said.
The Biden administration had warned of the risks of a chain reaction in the economy if the appeal decision is upheld, citing a brief attached to the filing by federations representing the mortgage and lending industry. ‘real estate.
These professions were concerned about an “immediate and intense disruption of the housing market, harming consumers and the economy as a whole” in the event of a retrospective challenge to the rules on real estate loans laid down a decade ago by the CFPB.
On the other hand, in two other cases on the freedom of action of administrative authorities whose wings the Republicans want to clip, the Supreme Court showed itself more inclined to limit their powers.
This is a case involving a 1984 case law, called the “Chevron” doctrine, requiring federal courts to follow the interpretation of government agencies in cases of ambiguity in the law, and one on the sanctions powers of the policeman of the Stock Exchange, the SEC.
The highest court in the United States must rule on the matter by the end of June.