The question
Whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's statutory funding mechanism, which lets the Bureau draw an amount its Director deems reasonably necessary from the Federal Reserve System's earnings subject to a cap, violates the Appropriations Clause.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism. Congress authorized the Bureau to draw money from the Federal Reserve System's earnings, in an amount its Director deems reasonably necessary and capped by inflation, outside the annual appropriations process. The Court held that this authorization satisfies the Appropriations Clause because an appropriation requires only a law that identifies a source of public money and designates the purposes for which it may be spent, a reading grounded in the Constitution's text, English and pre-founding history, and early congressional practice.
How the justices split
7-2The Court's opinion
Thomas, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson
An appropriation under the Appropriations Clause is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The Bureau's funding is drawn from the Treasury and so is subject to the Clause, but the statute identifies a source, the Federal Reserve System's earnings, and a purpose, carrying out the Bureau's duties, which is all the Clause requires. The Court rested this reading on the Constitution's text, the English and pre-founding history of legislative control over the purse, and congressional practice immediately following ratification.
Concurring
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Kagan filed a concurring opinion joined by Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. The syllabus does not set out its reasoning beyond identifying it as a concurrence beginning at page 441.
Concurring
Jackson, writing alone
Jackson filed a separate concurring opinion. The syllabus does not set out its reasoning beyond identifying it as a concurrence beginning at page 445.
Dissenting
Alito, joined by Gorsuch
Alito filed a dissenting opinion joined by Gorsuch, disagreeing with the conclusion that the Bureau's funding mechanism satisfies the Appropriations Clause. The syllabus does not set out the dissent's reasoning beyond identifying it as beginning at page 447.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Congress' statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out its duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Fifth Circuit had accepted the trade associations' argument that the Bureau's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court defined an appropriation as a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes.
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Gorsuch.
Source: syllabus, lineup