Get 40% Off
⚠ Earnings Alert! Which stocks are poised to surge?
See the stocks on our ProPicks radar. These strategies gained 19.7% year-to-date.
Unlock full list

Democratic state officials rush to defend U.S. consumer agency

Published 01/23/2017, 12:23 PM
Updated 01/23/2017, 12:30 PM
Democratic state officials rush to defend U.S. consumer agency

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic state officials took a step on Monday to try to defend the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in a court battle that could defang it, worried that Republican President Donald Trump's administration will not safeguard the agency.

Attorneys general from 16 states plus the District of Columbia filed papers with a federal appeals court seeking to intervene in the case. That court last October ruled that the structure of the agency charged with guarding consumer finances was unconstitutional.

The state officials said in the court filing that they are concerned that the Trump administration will fire the independent director of the agency, Richard Cordray, who was appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama. The agency was set up during Obama's presidency as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

The court filing noted that Trump "has expressed strong opposition to the Dodd-Frank reforms." As such, "it is urgent that the state attorneys general intervene in order to protect the interests of their states," the court filing said.

The state officials asked to be able to defend the agency in the legal challenge brought by mortgage lender PHH Corp and ensure that the case is not declared moot if the Trump administration decides to drop the appeal of the ruling.

Under the 2010 law, the director can be fired only "for cause," limiting the ability of a president to remove him.

But in the October ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that restriction was an unlawful limitation on presidential power.

The agency, with Obama still in office, immediately sought a rehearing. The court has not yet said whether it will reconsider the ruling.

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.