A U.S. district court judge in the Central District of California defended the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after rejecting multiple challenges to the bureau’s authority to issue civil investigative demands (CID),according to a blog by James Kim and Daniel Delnero, published in the CFPB Monitor.
The decision comes amid a growing amount of cases disputing the constitutionality of the bureau, which includes the landmark case between the CFPB and PHH that started oral arguments this week.
The blog explained that the judge ordered the defendant, Future Income Payments, to comply with a CID within fifteen days of the decision after the company previously attempted a John Doe challenge to the CID in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
From the blog:
The opinion is a reminder of the CFPB’s broad authority to issue a CID and the heavy burden a recipient bears of challenging it. The court joined other courts in emphasizing that an agency subpoena is valid unless jurisdiction is “plainly lacking.” Under this standard, a CID will be upheld if “there is some plausible ground for jurisdiction.”
Constitutional issues aside, the primary takeaway is that companies should think strategically when they receive a CID.