A group of plaintiffs, including a community bank in Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, have filed a lawsuit (complaint here) challenging the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank. The plaintiffs are represented by former White House counsel Boyden Gray, one of the law’s most outspoken critics. (He first outlined his legal arguments against Dodd-Frank in this Federalist Society white paper.)
The lawsuit, which has been filed in the U.S. District Court for D.C., challenges the structure of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (Title I) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Title X). The plaintiffs allege that “Titles I and X of the Dodd-Frank Act comprise unprecedented violations of ‘the basic concept of separation of powers and the checks and balances that flow from the scheme of a tripartite government.’” Indeed, the law attempts to shield the CFPB’s director from accountability to Congress, the president, and the courts, in a way that I don’t think any other agency has ever been shielded.
The complaint zeroes in on the impact the law will have on consumers, and I thought this particular excerpt was worth sharing:
Title X’s open-ended grant of power to the CFPB, combined with the absence of checks and balances limiting the CFPB from expansively interpreting that grant of power, creates a cloud of regulatory uncertainty that forces banks to censor their own offerings—a chilling effect that, for example, left the Bank with no safe choice but to exit the consumer mortgage business and not return until the CFPB’s authority and discretion are defined with greater specificity, transparency, and accountability.
I will continue to report on the case as it develops, and look forward to joining Mr. Gray and others in the effort to educate the public about the impact this law could have on our economy and on our system of government.