Replies to post #749258 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[familymang]

According to the petiton,

"The court of appeals recognized that “every court to consider [the CFPB’s] funding structure,” including the D.C. Circuit and at least six district courts, “has deemed it constitutionally sound.” App., infra, 39a. But the court “respectfully disagree[d] with” those decisions."

So the 5th circuit themselves admit they were splitting from every other circuit re: the constitutionality of CFPB's funding structure when they issued their ruling.

Some other snippets:

"This Court’s review is warranted because the court of appeals’ decision declared an Act of Congress unconstitutional, because it squarely conflicts with a decision of the D.C. Circuit"

This Court’s review is also necessary because the decision below conflicts with the D.C. Circuit’s decision in
PHH Corporation. Indeed, the court of appeals expressly acknowledged the conflict, “respectfully disagree[ing]” with the D.C. Circuit. App., infra, 39a. In PHH Corpo- ration, the D.C. Circuit considered a challenge to “Congress’s choice to allow the CFPB to claim funds from 22-58 (oral argument scheduled for Nov. 29, 2022). The Court need not consider those arguments in this case: The severability and other principles discussed here apply regardless of whether the remedy is nationwide vacatur of the CFPB’s past actions or more traditional party-specific equitable relief. the Federal Reserve rather than through the congressional appropriations process.” 881 F.3d at 95. The D.C. Circuit recognized that “Congress can, consistent with the Appropriations Clause, create governmental institutions reliant on fees, assessments, or investments rather than the ordinary appropriations process.” Ibid. It observed that Congress has “consistently” chosen such funding mechanisms for “financial regulators.” Ibid. And the D.C. Circuit upheld the CFPB’s funding mechanism because it “fits within the tradition of independent financial regulators.” Ibid.