Dustin Nofziger, a member of Pryor Cashman's Financial Institutions Group, spoke with Law360 about the recent oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) funding.
In "Despite 'Good Day' At High Court, CFPB Not Out Of Woods Yet," Dustin provides his reaction to the justices' questioning:
Dustin Nofziger, a member of the financial institutions group at Pryor Cashman LLP, cautioned against reading too much into the justices' scant discussion of remedies. For one, if many of the justices already believe the Fifth Circuit's remedy — invalidation of a regulation — was the correct, natural next step to take upon finding a constitutional violation, there would be little reason to dwell on that part of the case during oral arguments, he explained.
"The justices were really focused on trying to understand what the limits are of each side's theory of the appropriations clause," he said. "Their questions showed them seriously thinking through what the clause stands for and what the implications could be for Congress and other agencies."
"I just don't agree with commentators who think that because there wasn't more discussion on remedy, it means the majority is going to say there isn't an appropriations clause violation at all," he added. "Ultimately, we're going to find out if that's the case, but I think the [trade groups] still have a very good chance of winning."
Read the full article using the link below (subscription may be required).
Resources
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
