CFPB v. All American Check Cashing, et al, No. 18-60302 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

On the panel's initial hearing of the case, Judge Higginson concluded that the restrictions on the President's removal authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act are valid and constitutional. Judge Higginson found that neither the text of the United States Constitution nor the Supreme Court's previous decisions support appellants' arguments that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutionally structured, and thus he affirmed the district court's judgment.

More than two years later, and after conducting a vote among the circuit judges, the Fifth Circuit vacated its previous opinion and elected to hear the case en banc.

This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on March 3, 2020.

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 18-60302 _____________________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED March 20, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff - Appellee v. ALL AMERICAN CHECK CASHING, INCORPORATED; MID-STATE FINANCE, INCORPORATED; MICHAEL E. GRAY, Individually, Defendants - Appellants __________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi __________________________ (Opinion March 3, 2020, 5 Cir., 2020, 2020 WL 1026927) Before OWEN, Chief Judge, JONES, SMITH, STEWART, DENNIS, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES, HIGGINSON, COSTA, WILLETT, DUNCAN, ENGELHARDT, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. 1 BY THE COURT: A majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor, on the Court’s own motion, to rehear this case en banc, IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 41.3, the panel opinion in this case dated March 3, 2020, is vacated. 1 Judge Ho is recused and did not participate in this decision.
Primary Holding

After conducting a vote among the circuit judges, the Fifth Circuit vacated its previous opinion and elected to hear the case en banc.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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.