Court cases

Win or lose, Citibank’s battle to recover half a billion dollars from an accidental payment is sure to prompt a review of internal controls in the industry and could have a lasting impact on the more than $1 trillion syndicated loan market.

Many have assumed the high court would rule that presidents can fire the Federal Housing Finance Agency director at will. But during oral arguments in a case challenging the agency’s structure, some justices suggested they could stop short of such a decision.

The Conference of State Bank Supervisors, banking law scholars and consumer advocacy organizations filed amicus briefs siding with the New York State Department of Financial Services in its court battle with the federal regulator.

The high court ruled June 29 that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the separation of powers.

The court struck down a 2015 update to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which permitted robocalls to cellphones for government-related debt collection.

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.

The unsuccessful scheme has become the focus of a legal battle involving two former Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco employees against that government-sponsored enterprise, which fired them in 2018.

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