SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 29 2020, 12:00am EDT
Contact:
Ed Mierzwinski, Senior Director of Federal Consumer Program, 571-228-6135, edm@pirg.org
Mike Landis, Litigation Director, 201-850-2360, mlandis@pirg.org
Mark Morgenstein, Director of Media Relations, 678-427-1671, markm@publicinterestnetwork.org
U.S. Supreme Court Rules Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Structure Unconstitutional
Ruling says agency can continue to operate, but allows president to fire CFPB director without cause.
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the separation-of-powers principle embedded in the Constitution prohibits Congress from giving the director of the CFPB protection from being removed for cause. This part of the decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was 5-4.
U.S. PIRG Education Fund filed an amicus brief in January arguing that long-established principles and Supreme Court precedent supported the constitutionality of the CFPB's leadership structure, although Kathy Kraninger, who President Donald Trump appointed to head the CFPB in 2018, decided not to defend its structural constitutionality. The amicus brief also highlighted why Congress purposefully created an independent bureau focused on consumer financial protection: to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.
In response, U.S. PIRG Education Fund's Senior Director of Federal Consumer Program Ed Mierzwinski and Litigation Director Mike Landis released the following statements:
"The CFPB was created after the Great Recession to protect Americans from unscrupulous businesses that have too much power to wreak havoc on the public," said Mierzwinski, who helped create the Bureau. "Now, the Supreme Court has agreed with the CFPB's director, who actively worked with the Trump administration and a debt collection law firm, of all things, to undermine the Bureau's independence from politically-connected special interests."
"The legal question in this case was whether the CFPB's structure prohibits the president from carrying out his constitutional duties. Today, the Supreme Court ignored decades of precedent telling us that the answer is 'no,'" said Landis. "Today's decision gives more power to the president and creates the opportunity for undue political influence to outweigh reasoned decision-making by federal agencies."
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
LATEST NEWS
Win for Public Media as Federal Judge Blocks Trump Assault on NPR, PBS Funding
NPR's CEO called the ruling "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
Mar 31, 2026
Although the Corporation for Public Broadcasting dissolved at the beginning of the year, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service still celebrated a win in court on Tuesday, when a federal judge in Washington, DC blocked President Donald Trump's executive order intended to strip the organizations of federal funding.
NPR's attorney, Theodore Boutrous, called US District Judge Randolph's permanent injunction "a victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press."
"As the court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," he said in a statement to The Associated Press. "The executive order crossed that line."
Katherine Maher, NPR's CEO, similarly described the ruling as "a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press."
PBS said in a statement that "we're thrilled with today's decision declaring the executive order unconstitutional."
"As we argued, and Judge Moss ruled, the executive order is textbook unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and retaliation, in violation of long-standing First Amendment principles," the network added. "At PBS, we will continue to do what we've always done: serve our mission to educate and inspire all Americans as the nation's most trusted media institution."
Trump last May ordered the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to "cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my administration's policy to ensure that federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage." As private donations poured in to NPR and PBS, Congress then voted to claw back nearly $1.1 billion from CPB.
The congressionally created and funded nonprofit corporation, which distributed federal funding to locally managed public radio and television stations across the United States, then announced it would shut down—which it ultimately did following a January vote by its board of directors. Still, NPR and PBS fought back in court, leading to Tuesday's decision.
"The president may, of course, engage in his own expressive conduct, including criticizing the views, reporting, or programming of NPR, PBS, or any other news outlet with whom he disagrees," wrote Moss, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.
"The government may also fund its own speech and may fund government programs that promote specific perspectives on issues of public importance, and it may decide which views or perspectives to convey—and which not to convey—in any such government speech or program," Moss continued. "And it may impose limits on federal grants to ensure that they are deployed to further the legitimate purposes of the program, and may pick and choose among applicants based on legitimate criteria."
"But the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power—including the power of the purse—'to punish or suppress disfavored expression' by others," the judge stressed. "As the Supreme Court and DC Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government 'may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected... freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit."
Moss found that "Executive Order 14290 crosses that line. It does not define or regulate the content of government speech or ensure compliance with a federal program. Nor does it set neutral and germane criteria that apply to all applicants for a federal grant program. Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs."
"It does so, moreover, without regard to whether the federal funds are used to pay for the nationwide interconnection systems," he explained, "which serve as the technological backbones of public radio and television; to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones; to support the emergency broadcast system; or to produce or distribute music, children's, or other educational programming, or documentaries."
The judge noted that the order applied to grants from not only the now-defunct CPB but all federal entities, including the Department of Education, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and National Endowment for the Arts.
Because of those other potential sources of money, CNN reported Tuesday, "the ruling could—emphasis on could—lead to some funding for PBS and NPR in the future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let Me Clear Things Up': Bernie Sanders Explains Wealth Tax to Wall Street Overlord Jamie Dimon
“If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment. Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion."
Mar 31, 2026
As billionaires nationwide rally to stop tax increases on the wealthy, US Sen. Bernie Sanders stepped in to "clear things up" for one of Wall Street's top power brokers after he railed against the proposal.
Following in the footsteps of California, where a popular ballot initiative to impose a one-time 5% tax on the state's 200 billionaires has gained steam, Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced their own federal proposal earlier this month to tax those with net worths of more than $1 billion 5% of their annual household wealth.
The proposal is projected to raise $4.4 trillion over the next decade to provide direct payments to lower-income Americans, reverse Republicans' cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act spending, expand Medicare, and build millions of affordable housing units, among many other expenditures.
Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who is worth about $2.8 billion according to Forbes, appeared on Fox News on Tuesday and was asked by anchor Brian Kilmeade about Sanders' frequent accusations that billionaires "don't pay their fair share" in taxes.
"I don't know what he means by fair share," Dimon said. "I've listened to that my whole life, and I don't know what he means."
The two did not address the facts that may have led Sanders to draw such a conclusion. For instance, the senator often notes that fewer than 1,000 billionaires own more wealth than the bottom half of the US, around 175 million people.
Those billionaires also manage to pay a lower effective tax rate than the average American by wielding loopholes that allow them to exempt large chunks of their fortunes.
Sanders took to social media to respond to Dimon's incredulity about his idea of "fairness."
"Ok, Jamie: Let me clear things up for you," the senator wrote. "If my 5% wealth tax on billionaires was enacted, you’d owe $135 million more in taxes, and a family of four making $150,000 or less would receive a $12,000 payment."
"Oh, and you’d still be worth more than $2.5 billion," Sanders added. "Seems pretty fair to me."
Dimon's remarks came as billionaires are in a full-blown panic over the proposal for a one-time 5% tax in California, which is projected to raise about $100 billion, mostly to cover the Medicaid funding shortfall caused by the massive cuts in last year's GOP budget law.
A poll earlier this month showed that the measure, which will be put to voters in November, has about 2-1 approval, despite a more than $80 million effort by the state's elite—most notably Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page—to stop it in its tracks.
Dimon himself is not known to have contributed to the effort. But during his Tuesday appearance on Fox, he echoed one of the movement's oft-used talking points: that raising taxes on the rich leads to an "exodus" of wealth from financial hubs like New York and California.
As Forbes senior contributor Teresa Ghilarducci explained late last year, "Decades of economic research show that billionaire 'flight' is rare, exaggerated, and often confused with tax avoidance through accounting maneuvers rather than physical relocation."
Christopher Marquis and Nick Romeo similarly said last month in a piece for TIME that “despite multiple debunkings, the ‘millionaire exodus’ panic remains a popular narrative,” even though it is “frequently based on biased or sloppy arguments where anecdote replaces systematic evidence, correlation poses as causation, and every modest redistributive proposal is framed as an existential threat to prosperity.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Lashes Out After Judge Blocks Construction of His White House Ballroom
"Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!" wrote US District Judge Richard Leon.
Mar 31, 2026
President Donald Trump was left fuming after a federal judge blocked construction of his planned White House ballroom.
In a ruling delivered Tuesday, US District Judge Richard Leon granted a preliminary injunction requested by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, which had sued to stop the ballroom from being built.
While handing down the injunction, Leon reminded Trump that "the president of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations," then emphasized "he is not, however, the owner" of the building.
The judge—appointed by former President George W. Bush—found that Trump's ballroom was the first time that a proposed major addition to the White House went forward without any kind of congressional approval, and he recommended that the president seek input from the legislative branch before moving forward with the project.
"Unless and until Congress blesses this project through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!" Leon wrote in his conclusion. "But here is the good news. It is not too late for Congress to authorize the continued construction of the ballroom project."
The judge granted a two-week delay for his order to go into effect, but he warned any above-ground construction of the ballroom done in that time will be "at risk of being taken down depending on the outcome of this case."
In a Truth Social post delivered after the ruling, the president angrily lashed out at National Trust for Historic Preservation, which he described as "a Radical Left Group of Lunatics."
The president also claimed that his ballroom and the renovated John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts—which Trump shut down less than two months after illegally slapping his own name on the side of the building—"will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World."
Trump last year tore down the entire East Wing of the White House in preparation for the ballroom's construction, which was set to begin this week.
The cost of the ballroom is estimated at $400 million, and Trump is financing it by soliciting donations from some of America’s wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir.
The president held an exclusive White House dinner for some of the largest donors to the ballroom in October, in a move that many critics decried as a “cash-for-access” event.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular