Infopost | 2023.11.07

US Constitution Article I Section 9

A couple of months ago NPR had a preview of the then-upcoming Supreme Court calendar. In a follow up to Bruen and Dobbs the court is considering birth control pills, the legality of bump stocks (made infamous at that Las Vegas concert), and whether a restraining order for domestic violence is sufficient reason to impact their second amendment rights.

I'm not going to talk about those, other than to relay the NPR analyst's take on things. NPR was inclined to believe that SCOTUS would uphold the domestic violence gun control statues as a matter of sanity. If so, it should be interesting to see how the majority opinion backs into reasoning that aligns with 1789-era law, per the court's new 2A doctrine.

Wikipedia United States v. Rahimi

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Oral arguments for that one were today, but I've been busy with work and vball and fixing a sink. The other one:

Wikipedia Garland v. Cargill
Whether a bump stock device is a "machinegun" as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires "automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger."
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited

Wikipedia Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.

NPR's synopsis of this one was that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau cracked down on rotating payday lending fees. The payday lender lobbying group sued and appealed until they eventually got the fifth circuit to say that the CFPB and everything it has done is bogus because it's funded by Federal Reserve dues. The analyst noted that the case calls into the question the legality of a variety of institutions, such as the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, social security, and the US Mint because none are funded through appropriations.

Oral arguments for this one were last month, the transcript was a pretty good read.

Summary

US Constitution No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

The controversy centers on whether the above sentence empowers Congress to:
One additional factor is the principle of nondelegation that claims it is the duty of one branch of government to not give its power to another branch. Specifically, the CFPB declaring it needs $400 million to operate is potentially a transfer of budgeting authority from the legislature to the executive.

Petitioners

Supreme Court CFPB

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar advocated for the CFPB's funding mechanism, asserting that the CFPB is no different from many other agencies/programs funded without appropriations. She was certain to point out that the Justice Department's theory on Article I Section 9 is that 'appropriations' is meant to describe public funding and not the budget appropriations process itself.

Alito asked for the closest analogue to the CFPB, Prelogar went with one present at the country's founding:

Supreme Court CFPB customs service Alito Prelogar

It's probably worth mentioning that in the decade-plus that the CFPB has been around, we've remained more or less a democracy.

Respondents

Supreme Court CFPB

Speaking for the respondents, Noel Franscisco did his best to beat to death the phrase "separating the purse from the sword". He described the CFPB setting its own budget as two steps from tyranny because once you give the executive the purse, it's game over. He continually referred to a scenario where a government agency received unlimited funding in perpetuity, only acknowledging the CFPB's capped budget and nonpermanence when challenged. E.g. from Justice Kavanaugh:

Supreme Court CFPB Francisco Kavanaugh perpetual

I'm not sure if "Congress gives it over" is meant to describe the the capped budgeting discretion afforded to the CFPB or some hypothetical where Congress writes a law saying "whatever the president says is as good as legislated". Certainly, the Supreme Court is the right forum to discuss the bigger picture, but connecting the CFPB to "literal tyranny" isn't straightforward. And if Congress did try to pass a law permanently giving appropriations power to the executive, I doubt SCOTUS would grudgingly approve based on the precedent set in Payday Loan Scams v. Dodd and Frank.

Supreme Court CFPB Barrett Francisco budget

Under questioning from Justice Barrett, Francisco seems to have clarified the respondents' position:
Like, how obvious is it that the respondents just want SCOTUS to kick the CFPB back to Congress for a budget cap tweak, knowing that the legislature is so broken it'll never happen.



Related - internal

Some posts from this site with similar content.

Post
2023.11.22

Thanksgiving cheat sheet

Print this post on an index card and keep it in your pocket in case someone at Thanksgiving dinner describes themself as a taxpayer.
Post
2022.06.25

Decided

Reflecting on the SCOTUS decisions from this week.
Post
2024.01.10

Crashing the gates

Seven interesting legal battles.

Related - external

Risky click advisory: these links are produced algorithmically from a crawl of the subsurface web (and some select mainstream web). I haven't personally looked at them or checked them for quality, decency, or sanity. None of these links are promoted, sponsored, or affiliated with this site. For more information, see this post.

404ed
www.scotusblog.com

Supreme Court divided over federal-state conflict on emergency abortion ban - SCOTUSblog

The Supreme Court on Wednesday was divided over whether a federal law requiring hospitals that participate in Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" in an emergency overrides an Idaho law that bars most abortions. The court's ruling could affect health care in emergency rooms in th
404ed
www.whitehouse.gov

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy | The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, andin order to promote the interests of American workers, businesses, and consumers, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. A fair, open, and competitive marketplace has long been a cornerstone of the American...
www.nbcnews.com

Over 200 members of Congress ask Supreme Court to 'reconsider' Roe v. Wade

Over 200 members of Congress, most of them Republican men, asked the Supreme Court to overturn two abortion rights cases ahead of oral arguments in a Louisiana abortion case.

Created 2024.06 from an index of 271,477 pages.