Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had a busy first quarter defending itself. In the process of appealing the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia calling the CFPB “unconstitutionally structured,” the Department of Justice (DOJ) and 15 state Attorneys General joined the fray of government entities agreeing with the initial ruling.
The DOJ told the D.C. Circuit Court that the ruling should be upheld in its entirety, including the remedy to give President Trump full authority to remove the CFPB’s director at will. Just recently, the American Financial Services Association (AFSA) has joined the call to curb CFPB authority when they submitted a list of suggested regulatory reforms to the Trump administration. At the top of their list, was, of course, a halt to CFPB examinations and a moratorium on the use of disparate impact theory.
Lastly, in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but required plaintiffs to prove that a defendant’s policies could cause disparity. This ruling has significant implications for the CFPB in terms of how it determines disparate impact in auto finance.