Is it concern for history or the present that underlies the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the perpetual funding scheme granted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act?
Citations of the 17th and 18th century may have dominated the opinions, but concern for flexibility in funding the modern administrative state is at work here as well.
There is much to digest and debate in the four separate opinions that ultimately gave the CFPB a 7-2 win, but one upshot is perfectly clear: This decision will not help to restore legislative control over federal agencies.
Those who assume that this court is reflexively skeptical of the administrative state may be surprised by the outcome—and even more surprised by the fact that the author of the majority opinion was Justice Clarence Thomas.
At its…
