On December 30, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the CFPB union’s motion to clarify the scope of a preliminary injunction in the ongoing litigation regarding the CFPB’s funding and operations. The court held that the defendants claimed “lapse” in funding — premised on a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo that concluded that the Fed did not have “combined earnings” from which the CFPB could request funding — did not justify noncompliance with the injunction. The court held that the Dodd-Frank Act’s statutory text governs the CFPB’s funding process, and that the OLC’s interpretation of “combined earnings” was inconsistent with both the statute’s plain language and longstanding practice by the Fed and the CFPB, as covered by InfoBytes here. The court clarified that the ordinary meaning of “combined earnings” is all money earned, before expenses are subtracted, and that Congress deliberately used “net earnings” elsewhere when it intended a different meaning. Accordingly, the court clarified that the defendants’ interpretation and actions were contrary to both the injunction and the Dodd-Frank Act.