On November 26, the Trump administration and the union representing CFPB employees both replied to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s order to identify which provisions of the court’s original preliminary injunction they believed remained in force. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the D.C. district court enjoined the Trump administration’s leadership from dismantling the CFPB in March 2025. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and received a favorable ruling after the appellate court vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction (covered here). In September, the union representing CFPB employees submitted its petition for rehearing en banc, staying the effectiveness of the D.C. Circuit’s decision and keeping the injunction in place (covered here).

CFPB Union’s Motion to Clarify

On November 23, the CFPB union moved the district court to clarify the defendants’ obligations under the court’s March 28 preliminary injunction. The Trump administration filed a notice in the district court advising the Bureau may not legally request funds at this time since the Fed lacked any “combined earnings” (covered here). However, the plaintiffs challenged the CFPB’s legal justification for refusing to request funds and requested the court to clarify that the defendants could not justify violating the injunction by refusing to request necessary funding.

District Court’s Minute Order

On November 24, District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a minute order directing both parties to submit filings by November 26 identifying which provisions of the preliminary injunction they believed remained in force. The order also required the parties to consider the D.C. Circuit’s August 15 opinion and the pending petition for rehearing en banc.

CFPB Union’s Reply

In its November 26 response, the CFPB union maintained the preliminary injunction, as modified by the D.C. Circuit’s orders of April 11 and 28, remained in full effect because no mandate had yet been issued from the appellate court. The union cited federal procedure providing that a district court’s order remains in force until the appellate mandate is issued, even if a petition for rehearing remains pending.

Trump Administration’s Reply

The defendants, in their own November 26 filing, agreed that the preliminary injunction remained in effect as partially stayed and clarified by the D.C. Circuit, since the appellate mandate had not yet been issued. The defendants argued that the district court should interpret the injunction narrowly, focusing on remedying the specific unlawful actions identified earlier in 2025, rather than addressing broader questions about congressional appropriations or the CFPB’s ability to fulfill all statutory obligations in 2026.