On April 15, the CFPB filed a joint brief urging the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to vacate a judgment and consent decree in a case involving alleged redlining practices by a financial company. The joint brief responded to a prior amicus brief from multiple nonprofits opposing the CFPB and the defendants’ joint motion to vacate, as previously covered by InfoBytes here and here. The CFPB and the defendants argued that the judgment did not adjudicate any issues and that vacatur would not affect any parties beyond the defendants. They emphasized that the settlement contained no terms benefiting private parties and that vacatur serves the public interest by protecting First Amendment freedoms.

Amici argued that vacatur was improper, claiming it did not meet the standards for modifying a consent decree, particularly the requirement of a change in circumstances. However, the parties highlighted their position that the CFPB’s lawsuit was baseless and targeted the defendants for their speech. The judgment resulted from a prior settlement between the parties, and the parties argued that vacatur would not affect the Seventh Circuit’s decision on appeal.

The parties contended the case against the defendants was unjust, with the CFPB targeting the defendants due to perceived “wrong-think” by their CEO and employees, based on six statements from the defendants’ financial radio show. The Bureau noted that the speech in question, while potentially offensive, was not bigoted, and that bigotry is actionable only if it results in injury to a plaintiff, which was not the case here.