Last week I posted something about the latest attack on the CFPB's constitutionality because of its single-director structure and sought comment. Americans for Financial Reform Policy Counsel Brian Simmonds Marshall addressed the issue on the ACS Blog in an informative post titled An Easy Case: Why a Federal Appeals Court Should Reject a Constitutional Challenge to the CFPB. An excerpt from the end of the post:
A decision striking down the CFPB’s structure would not only break new constitutional ground, it would have wide-reaching practical consequences as well. Such a holding would mean that the structures of at least three other agencies are also unconstitutional because they are headed by a single official removable only for cause * * * *
Unfortunately, PHH could hardly be more fortunate in the panel drawn to decide this issue. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents. One judge on the panel has suggested in a prior case that he believes the Constitution would be best interpreted to require that all agency heads be removable by the president without cause and that the Supreme Court was mistaken when it decided otherwise 80 years ago. But even if the three-judge panel rules that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional, it will hardly have the last word: The CFPB can seek further review by the full D.C. Circuit and the Supreme Court.