Litigation

The Supreme Court issued an opinion Thursday morning that was unequivocal in its view that Congress is constitutionally empowered to fund agencies with open-ended and indirect funding mechanisms, overruling a 5th Circuit opinion from 2022 that found that executive branches must be subject to direct Congressional appropriations.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's credit card late fee rule, pausing it from being implemented days before it was meant to go live.

Many legal experts think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a case challenging its funding. Such a ruling would unleash a flurry of litigation that has been on hold pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge.

Business trade groups are expected to prevail in getting an emergency stay to stop the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $8 late fee rule from going into effect on May 14. However, the lawsuit would still have many steps to go after such a decision.

The case over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $8 late fee rule has emerged as a flashpoint in a larger debate over "judge shopping," whereby plaintiffs seek venues with judges sympathetic to their complaints.

A federal judge in Texas sided with bank trade groups, agreeing that bank regulators might have overstepped their authority in reforming parts of the Community Reinvestment Act.

The federal court judge determined that Federal Reserve banks are not obligated to grant master accounts. The decision set a precedent that has already been cited in another case.

Judge Mark T. Pittman sided with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in ordering the case be moved from Texas to the District of Columbia due to "forum shopping."

A lawsuit filed by the American Fintech Council and two other trade groups has implications for other states that also want to keep out high-cost consumer lenders.

American Bankers Association CEO Rob Nichols argued Tuesday that the trade group had no choice but to sue federal agencies that "overstepped" their authority. Former Trump-appointed regulators expressed support for the industry's increased willingness to take its overseers to court.

Judicial review of bad rulemaking is a right that all regulated industries enjoy. But some industries avail themselves more than others, and the ones that rely on it the most tend to get worse policies. Banks should take notice.

A Texas judge ordered the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to explain why it sued the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Texas to halt the bureau's $8 credit card late fee rule after the bureau filed a motion accusing the trade group of "forum shopping."

A Texas judge has recused himself from a case that pits the largest credit card issuers against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a rule that would eliminate $10 billion in late fees.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau claims trade groups have no jurisdiction to file a lawsuit in Texas to stop the bureau's $8 credit card late fee rule, saying the plaintiffs engaged in "forum-shopping" to seek the most favorable outcome.

Top banking regulators reaffirmed their commitment to bolstering the Community Reinvestment Act despite a court challenge, emphasizing their personal dedication to seeing the rule implemented.

Banco San Juan Internacional is suing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Board of Governors in Washington claiming they wrongfully terminated its access to the federal payments system.

After Carter Bankshares sought to auction one of his properties, Gov. Jim Justice promised to "push back like you can't imagine."

A lawyer says the industry has been on notice at least since the "Boom Boom Room" scandal of the 1980s that hostile workplaces won't be tolerated.

The Supreme Court justices grappled with the question of whether a newly formed company can challenge a regulatory rule after the six-year statute of limitations has expired, a decision that could have broad impact on plaintiffs' ability to challenge agency rules.

The original lawsuit was one of several filed in 2014 in a coordinated effort among federal and state regulators aimed at fraudsters trying to cheat distressed mortgage borrowers.