Who even knew Clarence Thomas had it in him? Let’s face it, he’s shocked everybody by taking the lead on a 7-2 decision rejecting a challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on Thursday. And this is good news because it safeguards federal agencies that would have had to undergo some pretty extensive changes.
In its decision, the court ruled that the funding mechanism for the financial sector regulator — which is part of a standing pool of funds issued by Congress apart from its typical appropriations bill process — is, in fact completely legitimate, The New Republic reports.
The case wended its way to the SCOTUS when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which TNR describes as “ultraconservative” decided that this method was in violation of the appropriations clause and was thereby unconstitutional.
“under the appropriations clause, an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the bureau’s funding meets these requirements,” Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “we therefore conclude that the bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the appropriations clause.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that as the current structure stands, it allows the agency to “bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight.”
“there is apparently nothing wrong with a law that empowers the executive to draw as much money as it wants from any identified source for any permissible purpose until the end of time,” Alito wrote.
But this isn’t really a conversation about constitutionality. Instead, this case began in 2018, when the Community Financial Services Association of America and the Consumer Service Alliance of Texas. This trade association represents payday lenders and credit-access businesses that sued the bureau in an effort to crackdown on payday loans.
“For years, lawbreaking companies and wall street lobbyists have been scheming to defund essential consumer protection enforcement,” a CFPB spokesperson wrote in a statement. “The Supreme Court has rejected their radical theory that would have devastated the American financial markets. the court repudiated the arguments of the payday loan lobby and made it clear that the CFPB is here to stay.”
I’m just surprised to find out that ol’ Clarence has a backbone that doesn’t always involve rich billionaires giving him free vacations. I’m a little bit gobsmacked, to tell the truth.
But that’s not the only one-two punch Thomas had in him. Surprisingly, he smacked back hard at Alito’s dissent, criticizing his colleague for not connecting his argument to the actual case being decided on.
This is, however, kind of sad in a way. Legal experts explained that the high court’s rational decision doesn’t necessarily show moderation. Instead, it’s a symptom of just how unbalanced the Fifth Circuit has become.
“we’re going to come back to this a lot over the next six weeks, but *please* don’t confuse ‘#scotus slaps down a wackadoodle fifth circuit decision’ with ‘#scotus is more moderate than its critics claim,'” wrote university of texas at austin law professor steven vladek. “not as radical as the fifth circuit’ is not the same as ‘moderate.'”
And it looks like the SCOTUS will be hearing more high-profile cases aiming to challenge the rights of federal agencies in upcoming weeks, including cases on gun and abortion rights.
While Thomas has a predilection for luxury vacations, he’s famously taciturn when he’s on the job. So this is a pleasant surprise. For once.
That said, he still needs to resign, thanks to his wife Ginni, whom most of us know was complicit in what went down on January 6, 2021. And it’s beyond clear that Thomas is only in this game for himself.
I said what I said.
this case has little to do with the cfpb and all to do with the funding mechanism. undoing the funding mechanism would mean the United States postal service and customs services were illegal. the fact this case even made it to scotus is the real tragedy. this is no victory, it is a sign of how far we have fallen.
Yup. And I’m worried we’re going to fall even further.