Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (19-7)

argument 19-7

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 14m 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central constitutional issue the Court is addressing in Seila Law v. CFPB?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case nineteen seven, CELA Law versus the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr Shan Magam.

Shen M. Sherrickam 0:08

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The structure of the C F P V is unprecedented and unconstitutional. Never before in American history has Congress given so much executive power to a single individual who does not answer to the President. By significantly limiting the President's ability to remove the CFPB's director, Congress violated the core presidential prerogatives to exercise the executive power and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This Court has recognized and reaffirmed the principle that the Constitution empowers the President to keep principal officers accountable by removing them at will. While the court created a narrow exception in Humphrey's executor in the context of a multi member commission, it has since distanced itself from the reasoning of that decision.

Shen M. Sherrickam 0:57

And there's no valid basis for extending it to the CFPB. The Court should also reject Amikus's proposed test, seemingly based on Morrison versus Olson, which would extend Morrison to principal officers and permit significant limitations on the President's ability to remove even his closest advisors. Now, as to the question of remedy, the Solicitor General contends that the Court should rewrite the Dodd Frank Act to give the President the power to remove the Director. But the constitutional question in this case arises in the context of a defence to an enforcement proceeding and not a facial challenge. The Court can provide complete relief by invalidating the civil investigative demand and reversing the judgment below.

Shen M. Sherrickam 1:40

In any event, the text and context of the Dodd-Frank Act made clear that Congress wanted to create an agency that was independent to the fullest extent possible, and not to invest vast power in an agency that was subject to presidential control, but without any congressional control over its funding.

How does the Solicitor General frame the argument about the CFPB’s removal restrictions?

Shen M. Sherrickam 1:58

The government's proposed remedy would have the perverse effect of making the CFPP less independent than agencies it was replacing. The Court should leave to Congress the quintessentially legislative task of deciding how to fix the CFPB's defective structure.

Elena Kagan 2:15

This case has a t kind of an academic quality to it. The uh demand in question was ratified by an acting head who was subject to the president's removal power without qualification. I don't see how The composition On the bureau. affects your client. Since your client was the adverse action is now attributable to someone who the president could remove At will. And I don't see how differently you would be affected. If the same thing occurred. with the president having the power. to remove at will. So whatever might have been with a board Heads. was responsible for this demand. The acting head is fully removable by the president.

Shen M. Sherrickam 3:31

Justice Ginsburg, there is a live dispute between us and the government, because we want the civil investigative demand to be invalidated, and the government seeks to enforce it. On this question of ratification, we don't believe that there is a live issue on ratification, not least because when the government raised this issue below, it presented no evidence, no factual evidence that the acting director in fact ratified this civil investigative demand. But where we agree with the government is that at most that would be an issue that would be live on remand. And the issue of ratification was raised at the Sircherari stage and both we and the government agree that that is not a live issue before the Court.

Shen M. Sherrickam 4:13

Where we disagree is that the government is trying to resuscitate that as a potential argument that it could make on remand. But in terms of this Court's traditional jurisdictional doctrines, there is a live dispute and therefore there is no mootness here. And we plainly have standing, including standing to appeal, Because our injury is the fact that my client is subject today to a civil investigative demand that even today the government is seeking still to enforce.