Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Amicus Briefs

Seila Law v. CFPB

CASE SUMMARY

The precedent of this Court does not compel an outcome for either side. Although decisions such as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988), approved statutes that insulate administrative officers from presidential removal, each of those rulings is readily distinguishable from the situation presented in this case. See PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75, 164–98 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (en banc) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (distinguishing Humphrey’s Executor and Morrison).

OUR TEAM

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

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Amicus Curiae Brief of the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Support of Petitioner

December 16, 2019 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees with NCLA that CFPB Director’s Protection from Removal Violates President’s Article II Duty

June 29, 2020 | Read More

Amicus Curiae Brief of the New Civil Liberties Alliance in Support of Petitioner

December 16, 2019

RELATED CASES
  • Javier Aguila, et al. v. Doug Ducey, et al.​

    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: Arizona Governor

    View Case
  • States of Alaska, South Carolina, and Texas v. Department of Education, et al.

    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 Active - July 16, 2024

    Agencies: Department of Education

    View Case
  • Allstates Refractory Contractors LLC v. Julie A. Su, in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of Labor, et al.

    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 - July 2, 2024

    Agencies: Department of Labor | Occupation Safety and Health Administration

    View Case
  • Alpine Securities Corporation v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, United States of America

    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: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority

    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 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

SHARE THIS CASE

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