Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
RD Legal Funding, LLC, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, No. 18-2743, 18-3033, 18-2860, 18-3156 · judgment October 30, 2020
Before the decision, about 2.3× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Second Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a business respondent.
Questions presented
Respondent Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought an enforcement action against Petitioners RD Legal Funding Partners, LP, et al., while, as Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183, 2192, 2202 (2020) held, the CFPB’s “structure” “violate[d] the separation of powers.” Before Seila Law was decided, the district court here also found the CFPB’s structure unconstitutional, and the CFPB appealed. While this case was on appeal and after Seila Law was decided, the CFPB submitted a declaration purporting to ratify both its bringing of the initial enforcement action and its appeal. Although ratification requires that the ratifying party be able to do the act ratified when it was done and when the ratification was made, the CFPB could not act while unconstitutionally structured, and the purported ratification here came years after the time for either bringing an action or filing an appeal had run. Despite the CFPB’s failure to meet those two fundamental requirements, and the Second Circuit’s obligation to determine its own jurisdiction, the appellate court presumed it could act, determining some (but not all) issues on the merits, and remanding to the district court to consider the purely legal issues of ratification. The questions presented are:
-
Whether ratification is an appropriate remedy for the separation-of-powers violation identified in Seila Law.
-
Whether, after Seila Law found the CFPB’s structure unconstitutional, the CFPB could ratify an enforcement action and subsequent appeal long after the time for doing either had run.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Anne Margaret Voigts
King & Spalding LLP
For respondent
Brian H. Fletcher
Acting Solicitor General
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 04 2021Petition DENIED.
- Sep 01 2021DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
- Sep 01 2021Reply of petitioners RD Legal Funding, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 16 2021Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Jul 19 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 16, 2021.
- Jul 16 2021Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 16, 2021 to August 16, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 09 2021Waiver of right of respondent People of the State of New York, ex rel. James to respond filed.
- Jun 14 2021Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 16, 2021)