Funding for Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has Consequences for Housing

Legal
Published
Contact: Thomas Ward
[email protected]
VP, Legal Advocacy
(202) 266-8230

In a case that could have significant repercussions for the housing industry, the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 3 heard oral arguments in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association of America.

The case centers on whether the way the CFPB receives its funding is a violation of the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Congress allows the CFPB to be funded through the Federal Reserve, rather than the annual appropriations process that determines the federal budget.

NAHB joined the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors to file an amicus brief warning the Supreme Court that the “housing market could descend into chaos” if the high court unwittingly rejected numerous mortgage rules that NAHB’s members rely on to ensure people can purchase homes.

Our coalition’s brief focused on the remedy if the Supreme Court found against CFPB and did not make any arguments concerning the constitutionality of the funding scheme.

The attorneys for both parties received strong questioning from the justices concerning CFPB’s funding and how it could craft a remedy if it found the CFPB’s funding is unconstitutional. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar specifically mentioned NAHB’s brief when she suggested that the Supreme Court could address only the funding — and not the rules — that the CFPB has developed.

Moreover, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated her concern about the market disruption that would occur if the Supreme Court jettisoned the rules that the mortgage market relies on. The attorney for the Community Financial Services Association (CFSA) suggested that the Supreme Court could stay its decision and send the case to Congress so it could develop a different way to fund the CFPB.

In the end, both liberal and conservative justices seemed to have trouble understanding the CFSA’s argument that the CFPB funding scheme violated the Appropriations Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas specifically commented that it was not enough to argue that Congress has never funded an agency in this manner; there must be a reason why that violates the Constitution.

NAHB expects a decision by early 2024.

Subscribe to NAHBNow

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

Log in to subscribe

Latest from NAHBNow

Workforce Development

Oct 10, 2025

HBI Report Reveals Economic Impact of Labor Shortages on Housing Production

The 2025 Fall Labor Market Report reveals the true cost of too few workers in the residential construction industry, and provides insights on generational and demographic shifts in the workforce.

Safety

Oct 10, 2025

Fighting the Stigma of Mental Health in Construction

Friday, Oct. 10, is World Mental Health Day, an annual observance from the World Health Organization to raise awareness of mental health issues around the world and to mobilize efforts in support of mental health.

View all

Latest Economic News

Economics

Oct 10, 2025

Vinyl Surpasses Stucco as Most Used Principal Exterior Wall Material

In 2024, vinyl siding was the most used principal exterior wall material for homes started. It holds just over a quarter share of homes, slightly surpassing stucco for the first time since 2018.

Economics

Oct 09, 2025

Remodeling Market Sentiment Improves in Third Quarter

In the third quarter of 2025, the NAHB/Westlake Royal Remodeling Market Index (RMI) posted a reading of 60, up one point compared to the previous quarter. With the reading of 60, the RMI remains solidly in positive territory above 50, but lower than it had been at any time from 2021 through 2024.

Economics

Oct 08, 2025

Refinancing Activity Surges in September

Refinancing activity surged in September, marking the largest monthly increase since the COVID-era of ultra-low interest rates. This increase followed mortgage rates dropping below 6.5% for the first time since October 2024 in anticipation of rate cuts that ultimately materialized. ­­