On December 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel opinion (covered here), and ordered that the district court’s injunction remain in effect — subject to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s partial stay pending appeal — in the CFPB’s appeal of the district court’s preliminary injunction (covered here). The court also granted motions for invitation to file amicus curiae briefs and set oral argument before the en banc court for February 24, 2026.

On December 16, the CFPB filed a notice in the D.C. Circuit, attaching a DOJ letter sent to the Fed in ongoing litigation between the union representing CFPB employees and the Bureau (most recently covered by InfoBytes here). The letter noted recent reports of the Fed’s possible return to profitability and requested the Fed’s opinion on: (i) whether it currently has “combined earnings” for purposes of Section 5497(a) as defined by the Office of Legal Counsel; and (ii) whether it anticipates having such earnings in the coming weeks. On December 17, the docket noted that the judge ordered the CFPB to docket any response from the Fed on the day it is received.

Separately, on December 15, the union filed a reply in support of its motion to clarify the court’s preliminary injunction against the CFPB and Acting Director Russell Vought (previously covered by InfoBytes here). The plaintiffs argued that the Bureau’s interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act’s funding provision — which they contend would allow Vought to shut down the CFPB if the Fed’s interest expenses exceed its earnings — contradicts the statute’s “text, context, history, and purpose.” The plaintiffs asserted that the defendants’ reading would undermine Congress’s intent to provide the CFPB with a stable, independent funding stream.

The reply further contended that the court’s existing injunction already prohibits the defendants from shutting down the CFPB, including through employee furloughs or other work stoppages, regardless of the defendants’ claims about the Fed’s profitability. The plaintiffs maintained that the Antideficiency Act does not excuse noncompliance with the injunction, as sufficient funds remain available under the Dodd-Frank Act’s funding mechanism. The plaintiffs requested the court clarify — not modify — the injunction, emphasizing that the defendants cannot rely on their new statutory interpretation to justify violating the court’s order.