By Jessica Gresko
The Supreme Court said Monday it will take up a Republican-led challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that could threaten how the consumer watchdog agency functions. It is the second time in three years that the justices will be examining the federal agency, which was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
The case will not be heard before October. That's when the court begins its next term.
Late last year, a federal appeals court — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit — ruled that the agency’s funding structure is unconstitutional, threatening its ability to function. The Biden administration asked the high court to review that decision, which it has now agreed to do.
The administration said the lower court’s ruling “calls into question virtually every action the CFPB has taken” since its creation. The decision “threatens to inflict immense legal and practical harms on the CFPB, consumers, and the nation’s financial sector,” the administration said.
Since the bureau was created more than a decade ago by the Dodd-Frank Act, it has varied in its aggressiveness. During the Obama administration, it used its muscle to collect fines from banks and credit card companies; during the Trump administration, it drastically scaled back enforcement actions. Republicans have argued that the agency has unchecked power.
The case the justices agreed to hear centers on the agency's funding. Unlike a majority of agencies, the CFPB does not get its funding from the annual budget process in Congress. Instead, it is funded directly by the Federal Reserve. The agency’s budget is capped at 12% of the total operating expenses of the Federal Reserve System. In the 2022 fiscal year, the agency received about $640 million.
The case the justices will hear began when two associations sued over the agency's Payday Lending Rule. They argued in part that the agency's funding structure violated the Constitution, improperly insulating the agency from congressional supervision. A trial court ruled against the associations, but the appeals court agreed the funding structure was unconstitutional. Other courts that had previously looked at the agency's funding structure found no issue.
In urging the justices to take the case, a group of 16 mostly Republican-led states called the CFPB “a failed experiment in administrative governance.”
Just three years ago, in 2020, the high court dealt with a different challenge to the agency. That case involved the agency's structure. The justices ultimately ruled that Congress had improperly insulated the head of the bureau from removal. The justices said the agency could continue to operate but that its director had to be removable by the president at will.
The CFPB was the brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and former Democratic presidential candidate.
Many U.S. consumers say they’ve noticed higher than usual prices for holiday gifts in recent months, according to a a December poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. A contributing factor is the unusually high import taxes the Trump administration put on foreign goods. While the worst-case consumer impact that many economists foresaw from the administration’s trade policies hasn’t materialized, some popular gift items have been affected more than others. Most toys and electronics sold in the U.S. come from China. So do most holiday decorations. Jewelry prices have risen due to the cost of gold.
Serbia’s prosecutor for organized crime has charged a government minister and three others with abuse of position and falsifying of documents related to a luxury real estate project linked to U.S. President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. The charges came on Monday. The investigation centers on a controversy over a a bombed-out military complex in central Belgrade that was a protected cultural heritage zone but that is facing redevelopment as a luxury compound by a company linked to Kushner. The $500 million proposal to build a high-rise hotel, offices and shops at the site has met fierce opposition from experts at home and abroad. Selakovic and others allegedly illegally lifted the protection status for the site by falsifying documentation.
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to block states from regulating artificial intelligence. He argues that heavy regulations could stifle the industry, especially given competition from China. Trump says the U.S. needs a unified approach to AI regulation to avoid complications from state-by-state rules. The order directs the administration to draw up a list of problematic regulations for the Attorney General to challenge. States with laws could lose access to broadband funding, according to the text of the order. Some states have already passed AI laws focusing on transparency and limiting data collection.
The New York Times and President Donald Trump are fighting again. The news outlet said Wednesday it won't be deterred by Trump's “false and inflammatory language” from writing about the 79-year-old president's health. The Times has done a handful of stories on that topic recently, including an opinion column that said Trump is “starting to give President Joe Biden vibes.” In a Truth Social post, Trump said it might be treasonous for outlets like the Times to do “FAKE” reports about his health and "we should do something about it.” The Republican president already has a pending lawsuit against the newspaper for its past reports on his finances.
President Donald Trump says he will allow Nvidia to sell its H200 computer chip used in the development of artificial intelligence to “approved customers” in China. Trump said Monday on his social media site that he had informed China’s leader Xi Jinping and “President Xi responded positively!” There had been concerns about allowing advanced computer chips into China as it could help them to compete against the U.S. in building out AI capabilities. But there has also been a desire to develop the AI ecosystem with American companies such as chipmaker Nvidia.
House Republicans in key battleground districts are working to contain the political fallout expected when thousands of their constituents face higher bills for health insurance coverage obtained through the Affordable Care Act. For a critical sliver of the GOP majority, the impending expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits after Dec. 31 could be a major political liability as they potentially face midterm headwinds in a 2026 election critical to President Donald Trump’s agenda. For Democrats, the party’s strategy for capturing the House majority revolves around pinning higher bills for groceries, health insurance and utilities on Republicans.
