16 subscribers
Player FM 앱으로 오프라인으로 전환하세요!
들어볼 가치가 있는 팟캐스트
스폰서 후원


1 QUALIFIED: How Competency Checking and Race Collide at Work with Shari Dunn | 284 33:58
Did the Supreme Court Hand the CFPB a Pyrrhic Victory?
Manage episode 422232440 series 2440870
Special guest Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School joins us today as we delve into the thought-provoking question of whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the landmark case of CFSA v. CFPB really hands the CFPB a winning outcome, or does the Court’s validation of the agency’s statutory funding structure simply open up another question: whether the CFPB is legally permitted to receive funds from the Federal Reserve if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. In other words, was the outcome in CFSA v. CFPB an illusory Pyrrhic victory for the CFPB? And, what happens next?
Our episode begins with a brief discussion of the underlying case. Professor Scott follows with an explanation of the CFPB’s statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to receive its funding out of the Federal Reserve System’s “earnings”, and the Supreme Court’s decision upholding that structure.
Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the op-ed Professor Scott published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The CFPB's Pyrrhic Victory in the Supreme Court”, in which Professor Scott explains that even though the CFPB's funding mechanism as written was upheld in CFSA v. CFPB, this will not help the agency now or at any time in the future when the Federal Reserve operates at a deficit – in fact, has no earnings it can legally send to the CFPB. Professor Scott describes how his focus on the Federal Reserve led him to scrutinize and then question the approach taken in the majority opinion; and then turns to an explanation of how a constitutional issue under the Appropriations Clause in fact may persist because in the absence of Fed earnings, funds paid to the CFPB arguably have not been drawn from the Treasury. We then go over possible arguments challenging the CFPB’s issuance and enforcement of regulations, and what might ensue when the federal district court takes up CFSA v. CFPB for further proceedings.
Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week’s episode.
128 에피소드
Manage episode 422232440 series 2440870
Special guest Professor Hal Scott of Harvard Law School joins us today as we delve into the thought-provoking question of whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the landmark case of CFSA v. CFPB really hands the CFPB a winning outcome, or does the Court’s validation of the agency’s statutory funding structure simply open up another question: whether the CFPB is legally permitted to receive funds from the Federal Reserve if (as now) the Fed has no earnings. In other words, was the outcome in CFSA v. CFPB an illusory Pyrrhic victory for the CFPB? And, what happens next?
Our episode begins with a brief discussion of the underlying case. Professor Scott follows with an explanation of the CFPB’s statutory funding mechanism as established by the Dodd-Frank Act, which provides that the CFPB is to receive its funding out of the Federal Reserve System’s “earnings”, and the Supreme Court’s decision upholding that structure.
Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the op-ed Professor Scott published in the Wall Street Journal entitled “The CFPB's Pyrrhic Victory in the Supreme Court”, in which Professor Scott explains that even though the CFPB's funding mechanism as written was upheld in CFSA v. CFPB, this will not help the agency now or at any time in the future when the Federal Reserve operates at a deficit – in fact, has no earnings it can legally send to the CFPB. Professor Scott describes how his focus on the Federal Reserve led him to scrutinize and then question the approach taken in the majority opinion; and then turns to an explanation of how a constitutional issue under the Appropriations Clause in fact may persist because in the absence of Fed earnings, funds paid to the CFPB arguably have not been drawn from the Treasury. We then go over possible arguments challenging the CFPB’s issuance and enforcement of regulations, and what might ensue when the federal district court takes up CFSA v. CFPB for further proceedings.
Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr’s Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week’s episode.
128 에피소드
모든 에피소드
×


1 Will the State Attorneys General and Other State Agencies Fill the Void Left by the CFPB? 1:05:01

1 Alan Kaplinsky’s “Fireside Chat” with Matthew J. Platkin, New Jersey Attorney General 29:39


1 The Impact of the Election on the CFPB: What to Expect with Supervision and Enforcement During Trump 2.0 41:35

1 Alan Kaplinsky’s “Fireside Chat” with Kathy Kraninger, Former Director of the CFPB During Trump 1.0 1:00:05


1 The Impact of the Election on the CFPB: What to Expect on Key Regulatory Issues During Trump 2.0 56:15

1 Alan Kaplinsky’s “Fireside Chat” with Former CFPB Leader David Silberman: His Experience During the Prior Transition from the Obama Administration to Trump 1.0 38:07



1 Consumer Federation of America (“CFA”) Speaks Out About CFPB’s and FTC’s Direction During the Trump Administration 1:04:50

1 A Look at the FTC’s Click-to-Cancel Rule, with James Kohm, Associate Director of Enforcement Division of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection 51:36
플레이어 FM에 오신것을 환영합니다!
플레이어 FM은 웹에서 고품질 팟캐스트를 검색하여 지금 바로 즐길 수 있도록 합니다. 최고의 팟캐스트 앱이며 Android, iPhone 및 웹에서도 작동합니다. 장치 간 구독 동기화를 위해 가입하세요.