Cmty Fin Assoc America v. CFPB, No. 21-50826 (5th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 19, 2022.
Download PDF
Case: 21-50826 Document: 142 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/19/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED June 19, 2024 No. 21-50826 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited; Consumer Service Alliance of Texas, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; Rohit Chopra, in his official capacity as Director, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:18-CV-295 ______________________________ ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Before Willett, Engelhardt, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: This case is before us on remand from the Supreme Court. On initial review, we reversed the judgment of the district court and vacated the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s 2017 Payday Lending Rule based on our conclusion that the Bureau’s funding structure violated the Appropriations Clause. 51 F.4th 616, 635–44 (5th Cir. 2022). The Supreme Case: 21-50826 Document: 142 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/19/2024 No. 21-50826 Court reversed our judgment and held that the Bureau’s funding structure is constitutional. Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Cmty. Fin. Servs. Ass’n of Am., Ltd., 601 U.S. 416, 441 (2024). Though it reversed our judgment in its entirety, the Court did not address the other issues we decided in the case. See 51 F.4th at 626–35. Accordingly, we REINSTATE our judgment affirming the district court’s ruling in favor of Defendants based on Plaintiffs’ alternative arguments, and we RENDER judgment in favor of Defendants declaring that the Bureau’s funding structure, and thereby the Payday Lending Rule, is constitutional. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen days after entry of this opinion to file a petition for panel rehearing. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). Plaintiffs’ letter filed May 16, 2024, see Fed. R. App. P. 28(j), is STRICKEN for noncompliance with the rule. 2
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.
