Kate Berry

The agency’s director previewed a policy for companies under enforcement action to have their orders terminated if they comply ahead of schedule.

The high court scheduled oral arguments on March 3 in the lawsuit dealing with a president's ability to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Democracy Forward filed the lawsuit Monday against the consumer bureau, Director Kathy Kraninger, the U.S. Department of Education and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

The high court will decide how much latitude a president has to fire the director of an independent agency.

In her second day of congressional testimony, Kathy Kraninger took heat from Senate Democrats for weighing in on constitutional questions about her agency and for her enforcement track record.

CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger faced a barrage of questions from Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee over why the agency has not demanded refunds for consumers in recent settlements.

A list of upcoming cases published by the high court did not include a challenge to the bureau's constitutionality, but the justices could still decide to review it at a later date.

The two Democrats waded into a court battle over the president's ability to fire a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The industry had welcomed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau plan allowing debt collectors to use electronic communication, but some worry about the effect of a court decision concerning email correspondence.

By declaring that she has too much statutory power, the agency’s director has potentially opened a floodgate of litigation.

If the court agrees to hear the case, its conservative majority could make it easier for a president to fire a CFPB director, though other outcomes are possible.

There were signs Kathy Kraninger would continue a rollback of consent orders and investigations, but many observers see an aggressive approach reminiscent of the Obama era.

The agency's director told congressional leaders and staff that she backs a Supreme Court challenge to the bureau's leadership structure.

The Supreme Court may be closer to examining a key restraint on a president's ability to change CFPB leadership.

The bureau issued three policies removing the threat of legal liability for approved companies that test new products.

The event is the bureau's second in a series on consumer protection policy. The first dealt with the agency's authority to penalize firms for unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices.

Asset Recovery Associates told borrowers that it could sue them, garnish their wages and place liens against their homes, according to a consent order by the consumer bureau.

Though advocates and industry are rarely aligned, they are starting to coalesce around a plan that would call for the elimination of the CFPB’s 43% debt-to-income limit as part of its qualified mortgage rule.

Robert G. Cameron, a former official at the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, will succeed Seth Frotman as the bureau's point person on student lending complaints.

The industry has long worried that the ability-to-repay rule gives borrowers an avenue to fight foreclosure, but one plaintiff’s experience may discourage others from trying.