Seila Law LLC, Petitioner v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Summary

The Supreme Court held that the CFPB's leadership by a single Director insulated from at-will removal violates the separation of powers, because the Director unilaterally wields significant executive power without accountability to the elected President; the Court declined to extend Humphrey's Executor or Morrison to this novel single-Director structure. Exercising Dodd-Frank's express severability clause, the Court severed the removal restriction (12 U.S.C. § 5491(c)(3)), allowing the CFPB to continue operating with a Director removable at will, vacated the Ninth Circuit's judgment, and remanded for consideration of whether the civil investigative demand was validly ratified by an Acting Director. Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have simply denied enforcement without reaching severability and urged future repudiation of Humphrey's Executor; Justice Kagan, joined by three colleagues and dissenting in part, would have upheld the removal restriction under longstanding text, history, and precedent.