SCOTUS

The Supreme Court threw out a key statutory provision concerning the agency’s leadership structure, but the presidential election and possible legislative reforms could bring about more changes to the embattled bureau.

In a split 5-4 decision, the justices gave presidents new power to remove the agency's head at will. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for other regulators with single directors.

The court’s liberal bloc and Chief Justice John Roberts, who holds a crucial swing vote, appeared reluctant to remove a contentious provision that limits a president’s ability to fire a sitting director of the bureau.

John Roberts could play a familiar role as the swing vote in determining whether the Supreme Court curbs the consumer bureau’s power.

Democratic lawmakers, state attorneys general and others filed briefs with the Supreme Court rebutting claims that the agency’s leadership structure is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court appointed Paul Clement to represent the agency after the bureau’s current director questioned its constitutionality.

The case before the court deals mainly with a statutory clause limiting the president’s ability to fire a CFPB director. But briefs filed with the court say striking that provision does not fully solve the bureau’s constitutional problems.

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.

The Supreme Court is ready to weigh in on the CFPB’s leadership structure, but both agencies are facing similar constitutional challenges, suggesting a broader impact of any decision.

A lower court “erred” when it sided with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s investors, the Justice Department said in its petition to the high court.