NCLA Site Search

Cases

CFPB v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney

Back to Case Finder

CASE: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Law Offices of Crystal Moroney, P.C.

STATUS: Active

NCLA ROLE: Counsel

COURTS HEARD IN: SCOTUS, S.D. NY, 2nd Cir.

ORIGINAL COURT: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

DECIDING COURT: U.S. Supreme Court

OPENED: December 18, 2019

AGENCIES: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

FOCUS AREAS:

Due Process Violations

The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

CASE SUMMARY

The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed a lawsuit challenging, among other things, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) leadership and funding structures. In Law Offices of Crystal Moroney v. Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, NCLA asserted that CFPB’s leadership structure violated the Take Care and Appointments Clauses of Article II of the United States Constitution. Since CFPB’s single-Director was only removeable for cause, the President was unconstitutionally prohibited from exercising control or oversight of an executive agency’s enforcement activities and resource allocation. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with NCLA’s argument, finding the for-cause removal provision unconstitutional in Seila Law v. CFPB (NCLA filed as amicus curiae in that case).

CFPB tried to compel production of documents and information related to the Crystal Moroney’s law firm’s debt collection practices over several years. It also unlawfully sought confidential and privileged attorney-client material generated in the course of Ms. Moroney’s practice of law. Moreover, the agency pursued its enforcement action in the wake of Seila Law with an invalid attempt to ratify the prior unconstitutional issuance of the CID and related administrative proceedings.

The Supreme Court had a chance to address NCLA’s argument that Congress unlawfully divested its legislative appropriations power when it gave CFPB the ability to draw funding directly from the Federal Reserve, without Congressional appropriations committee oversight or annual appropriations. Congress has surrendered the power of the purse to the President and an executive branch agency, violating Article I of the Constitution. In June 2023, NCLA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to resolve this issue. The Supreme Court placed a hold on NCLA’s certiorari petition until after it issued its decision in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, a case argued in the Supreme Court in October 2023 that raised identical separation-of-powers issues.

In May 2024, the Supreme Court denied NCLA’s petition for certiorari.

OUR CLIENT

Crystal Moroney, Plaintiff

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer
Margaret A. Little
Senior Litigation Counsel

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Memorandum for Respondent

July 24, 2023 | Read More

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

June 21, 2023 | Read More

Appellee Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Response in Opposition to Motion to Stay the Mandate

May 8, 2023 | Read More

Stay of Mandate Pending the Filing of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

April 28, 2023 | Read More

Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

March 23, 2023 | Read More

SEE 33 FILINGS
PRESS RELEASES

NCLA Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Second Circuit, Hold CFPB’s Funding Method Unconstitutional

June 22, 2023 | Read More

NCLA Challenges Constitutionality of CFPB’s Unique, Congress-Free Funding Structure

March 8, 2021 | Read More

WATCH: NCLA’s Case Video Shows the CFPB’s “Knee-Buckling” Power to Punish Private Citizens

October 30, 2020 | Read More

SDNY Judge Recognizes CFPB Acted Unconstitutionally, but Still Enforces CID Against NCLA Client

August 18, 2020 | Read More

NCLA Disputes CFPB Enforcement Action on Ground that Agency Is Unconstitutional post-Seila Law

July 16, 2020 | Read More

SEE 6 PRESS RELEASES
IN THE MEDIA

CFPB Destroys Small Law Firm & 2nd Circuit Superfluously Expounds on Constitutionality

Collection Advisor

May 12, 2023

CFPB Pushes Back On NY Firms Constitutional Challenge

February 6, 2023

Why Is Congress Giving Its Powers Away?

February 6, 2023

NY federal district court grants CFPB petition to enforce CID ratified by Director Kraninger

February 6, 2023

Judge lets CFPB demand records from N.J. lawyer despite SCOTUS ruling

February 6, 2023

SEE 8 MEDIA MENTIONS

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.