Jackson raises concerns about Supreme Court becoming a ‘super legislature’ in financial regulator case.
Supreme Court Justice Expresses Concerns About Judiciary Becoming a “Super Legislature”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the Supreme Court’s most recent appointee, raised important questions on Tuesday regarding the role of the judiciary in a crucial case that aims to rein in the administrative state.
“How do we prevent the judiciary from becoming a super legislator, dictating to Congress agency by agency whether their actions are acceptable or not?” Jackson asked during oral arguments in the case Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America.
The case revolves around the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which enforces federal consumer financial laws and safeguards consumers in the financial marketplace.
Supreme Court Weighs CFPB Legality in Case Challenging Funding of Financial Watchdog
The lawsuit, brought by financial services companies, argues that Congress violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause by directing funding for the CFPB straight from the Federal Reserve, bypassing the annual budget process.
Jackson, a liberal appointee of President Joe Biden, expressed her concerns towards the end of the oral arguments, stating, “I’m a little worried. I think about a separation of powers problem that may occur if the judiciary gets involved with telling Congress when and under what circumstances it can exercise its own prerogatives concerning funding.”
Interestingly, Jackson’s concerns align with those of the 6-3 Republican-appointed majority, including the three liberal justices on the court.
The main criticism against the funding mechanism is that it restricts future Congresses from making changes to the funding process, a point that conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh disputed, stating, “Congress could change it tomorrow. There’s nothing perpetual or permanent about this.”
Noel Francisco, former solicitor general under the Trump administration, argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for Congress to specify a clear funding amount for the CFPB to ensure its constitutionality.
During the arguments, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas appeared undecided, acknowledging that Congress had never gone this far before but stating that not doing so was not a constitutional problem.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito seemed more sympathetic to Francisco’s argument, questioning the government about the provision of the law that states the CFPB’s funds are not considered government funds or appropriated monies.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, who played a key role in establishing the CFPB after the 2008 financial crisis, warned of the potential consequences of an unfavorable ruling by the Supreme Court, stating that it could threaten other agencies and welfare programs with similar funding structures.
However, the majority of the justices on Tuesday indicated that they may not be inclined to make a broad ruling that Democrats like Warren and the Biden administration fear.
Joseph Lynyak, a partner at the international firm Dorsey & Whitney, noted that several justices seemed cautious about interpreting the appropriations clause in a way that would require the courts to evaluate Congress’s exercise of its power of the purse in almost all instances.
This case is the first of three major cases the Supreme Court will hear this term that challenge the regulatory authority of federal agencies in areas such as banking, business, industry, and the environment.
Last year, the Republican-appointed majority limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to impose broad limits on greenhouse gases, curtailing the Biden administration’s efforts to address climate change.
One of the cases this term seeks to overturn the Chevron doctrine, a 1984 precedent that instructs courts to defer to government agencies’ reasonable interpretation of ambiguous federal law. Another case aims to restrict the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s in-house adjudications.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue rulings on all three cases by the end of June.
How does the expansion of the administrative state impact the constitutional validity of regulatory agencies?
Wledging the complexity of the issue and the need for a careful analysis of the constitutional implications.
The case has garnered significant attention as it raises important questions about the separation of powers and the limits of judicial authority. The concern raised by Justice Jackson regarding the judiciary becoming a “super legislator” is a crucial one. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and apply the law, not to dictate policy or make legislative decisions.
In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the expansion of the administrative state and the concentration of power in regulatory agencies. The CFPB, as a regulatory agency, plays a vital role in protecting consumers and enforcing financial regulations. However, the issue at hand is not about the agency’s mission or effectiveness but rather the constitutional validity of its funding mechanism.
The Constitution grants the power of the purse to Congress, allowing it to control the funding of government agencies. The argument made by the plaintiffs in this case is that Congress violated this constitutional provision by bypassing the standard budgetary process and giving the CFPB direct funding from the Federal Reserve.
While it is essential to ensure that regulatory agencies have the necessary resources to carry out their mandate, it is equally important to uphold the constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. The concern raised by Justice Jackson highlights the potential dangers of judicial overreach and the erosion of democratic processes.
This case, therefore, serves as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to clarify the limits of judicial authority and reaffirm the importance of the separation of powers doctrine. It is not the role of the judiciary to dictate how Congress should exercise its constitutional prerogatives concerning funding.
The concerns expressed by Justice Jackson are noteworthy, particularly because they resonate with both conservative and liberal justices on the Supreme Court. This bipartisan recognition of the potential pitfalls of judicial activism underscores the significance of the issue at hand.
As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court has the responsibility to safeguard the integrity of the Constitution and preserve the balance of power between the branches of government. The outcome of this case will not only determine the constitutionality of the CFPB’s funding mechanism but also reaffirm the principles upon which our democracy is founded.
It is crucial for the court to approach this case with careful consideration of the constitutional principles at stake. By doing so, the court can ensure that the judiciary remains a guardian of the Constitution and not a “super legislature” that encroaches upon the functions of the legislative branch.
As the arguments in this case come to a close, the eyes of the nation are on the Supreme Court to provide clarity on the role of the judiciary in relation to the administrative state. The decision the court makes will have far-reaching implications for the balance of power and the future of our democracy.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
