Supreme Court Opinion Allows CFPB to Keep Operating; President Can Remove the Director

Codes and Standards
Published

In a ruling that will avoid disruptions to the nation’s mortgage and lending markets, the Supreme Court ruled today that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) can continue operating but the president has the authority to remove the director “at will.”

In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the CFPB’s structure – which includes a single director that can only be removed for cause by the president – is unconstitutional. However, the court also held that the remedy to this constitutional issue is to sever the for-cause provision from the statute. Thus, the CFPB remains intact and the director can be removed at will by the president.

The ruling stated: “…[T]here are compelling reasons not to extend [prior] precedents to the novel context of an independent agency led by a single Director. Such an agency lacks a foundation in historical practice and clashes with constitutional structure by concentrating power in a unilateral actor insulated from Presidential control. We therefore hold that the structure of the CFPB violates the separation of powers. We go on to hold that the CFPB Director’s removal protection is severable from the other statutory provisions bearing on the CFPB’s authority. The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will.”

NAHB joined an amicus brief with the Mortgage Bankers Association and National Association of Realtors that contended if the Supreme Court found CFPB’s structure unconstitutional, it should sever the “for-cause” provision in order to avoid massive disruption in the mortgage and lending markets that would result if CFPB were disbanded.

The Supreme Court’s ruling today prevents this disruption by preserving the agency while addressing the unconstitutional provision.

A very similar case was brought against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) in the Fifth Circuit. Last year, that court held, in an en banc (a case heard before all the judges) opinion, that the FHFA structure was likewise unconstitutional and could be remedied similarly by severing the for-cause provision from the statute. Both parties in this case (Collins v. Mnuchin) sought the Supreme Court’s review, and those petitions are still pending.

For more information, email [email protected].

Subscribe to NAHBNow

Log in or create account to subscribe to notifications of new posts.

Log in to subscribe

Latest from NAHBNow

Economics

Jul 03, 2025

Consumer Confidence Retreats in June

After a strong rebound in May, consumer confidence resumed its downward trend in June. Consumers remain concerned about the economy and labor market amid ongoing uncertainty, especially around tariffs.

Sponsored Content

Jul 02, 2025

5 Proven Strategies Smart Builders Use to Grow in Any Market

Sound Capital has worked with builders across market cycles for over 20 years. They have seen who thrived when others pulled back, and they've studied the strategies they used to scale while competitors were sidelined. Here are five things they all had in common.

View all

Latest Economic News

Economics

Jul 03, 2025

Solid Job Growth in June

The U.S. labor market continued to show resilience in June, with steady job gains led by state/local government and health care sectors.

Economics

Jul 02, 2025

Two or More Story Home Starts Rebound in 2024

Over half of new single-family homes built in 2024 were two or more stories, according the recent release of the Census Bureau’s Survey of Construction (SOC). After declining in 2023, the share of homes started with two or more stories increased again in 2024, continuing the upward trend in place since 2020.

Economics

Jul 01, 2025

May Private Residential Construction Spending Dips

Private residential construction spending fell by 0.5% in May, marking the fifth straight month of decreases. This drop was primarily driven by reduced spending on single-family construction. Compared to a year ago, total spending was down 6.7%, as the housing sector continues to navigate the economic uncertainty stemming from ongoing tariff concerns and elevated mortgage rates.