On February 11, the CFPB, the Bureau’s acting director, and the Fed (the defendants) filed an opposition brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon in response to a coalition of state attorneys general seeking partial summary judgment regarding the Bureau’s funding mechanism (covered by InfoBytes here). The defendants urged dismissal on multiple threshold grounds, arguing the challenge was moot because the CFPB had already requested and received funds under a court order in separate litigation. They asserted that the alleged harms were speculative, contingent on hypothetical events, and currently prevented by injunction, contending that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that their claims were not ripe for adjudication. The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs’ suit is duplicative of ongoing litigation in other courts (covered by InfoBytes here), that venue is improper, and that there was no “final agency action” at issue, as required for a challenge under the APA.

The defendants disputed the state attorneys general’s reading of the Dodd-Frank Act’s funding provision, arguing it imposes the duty to transfer funds on the Fed — not the CFPB director — and that “combined earnings” refers to profits, not gross revenues as the plaintiffs contend. The opposition brief cited legislative history showing Congress intentionally limited transfers to earnings to protect Fed independence. The brief also argued that any delay was reasonable, that the plaintiffs’ ultra vires claim was foreclosed by their APA claims, and that their separation-of-powers theory was merely a statutory claim, not a constitutional one. With respect to remedies, the defendants maintained that even if the court finds a violation, relief should be limited to remand rather than declaratory or injunctive orders, and that mandamus was unwarranted because plaintiffs could seek relief directly against the Fed. The brief concluded that any injunction should be narrowly tailored and stayed pending appeal.