CFPB v. Great Plains Lending, LLC, No. 14-55900 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Tribal Lending Entities challenged the district court's decision compelling them to comply with the Bureau's civil investigative demands. The court rejected the Tribal Lending Entities' argument that because the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, Title X, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat 1376, defines the term "State" as including Native American tribes, the Tribal Lending Entities, as arms of sovereign tribes, are not required to comply with the investigative demands. The court concluded that, in the Act, which is a generally applicable law, Congress did not expressly exclude tribes from the Bureau’s enforcement authority. The court explained that, although the Act defines “State” to include Native American tribes, with States occupying limited co-regulatory roles, this wording falls far short of demonstrating that the Bureau plainly lacks jurisdiction to issue the investigative demands challenged in this case, or that Congress intended to exclude Native American tribes from the Act’s enforcement provisions. Neither have the Tribes offered any legislative history compelling a contrary conclusion regarding congressional intent. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Tribal Issues / Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The panel affirmed the district court’s decision compelling Tribal Lending Entities to comply with civil investigative demands issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Tribal entities are for-profit lending companies created by the Chippewa Cree, Tunica Biloxi and Otoe Missouria Tribes (the “Tribes”). The Bureau initiated an investigation into the Tribal Lending Entities to determine whether small-dollar lenders violated federal consumer financial laws. The Tribes directed the Tribal Lending Entities not to respond to the investigative demands. The panel held that the Consumer Financial Protection Act was a law of general applicability, and it applied to tribal businesses, like the Tribal Lending Entities involved in this appeal. The panel further held that Congress did not expressly exclude Tribes from the Bureau’s enforcement authority. The panel also held that none of the three exceptions in Donovan v. Coeur d’Alene Tribal Farms, 751 F.2d 1113, 1115 (9th Cir. 1985), to the enforcement of generally applicable laws against Indian tribes applied to this case. The panel concluded that the district court properly held that the Bureau did not plainly lack jurisdiction to issue investigative demands to the tribal corporate entities under the Act. CFPB V. GREAT PLAINS LENDING 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.