The Trump administration has secured a narrow but meaningful legal win in its broader push to downsize—and potentially dismantle—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a brief but impactful 3-page ruling that temporarily blocks enforcement of three key provisions from a previous injunction aimed at protecting CFPB operations and employees. The decision comes as part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), which accuses the administration of unlawfully firing CFPB staff and erasing crucial agency records.
⚖️ Background: A Legal Battle Over the CFPB’s Survival
The NTEU filed suit after the Trump administration—specifically OMB Director Russ Vought—allegedly terminated numerous CFPB employees without cause and deleted internal data, including cybersecurity-related contracts. The union claims the administration’s actions are an effort to gut the agency from within, in defiance of legal protections.
In late March, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued an eight-part preliminary injunction designed to halt what she described as efforts to “choke out [the CFPB] of its very existence” before the case can be decided on the merits.
Her sweeping order temporarily blocked employee firings, data destruction, contract terminations, and restricted work stoppages. It also mandated the government provide adequate work tools for CFPB staff and maintain the agency’s public services, like its website and complaint portal.
🛑 What the Appeals Court Just Blocked
On Friday, the appellate court stayed three provisions of the injunction:
Reinstatement of fired employees
Ban on further terminations
Deadline for a government compliance report
However, the court added a key clarification:
The government may continue firing workers or refuse to rehire terminated employees, if it conducts individualized assessments and deems them “unnecessary to the performance of statutory duties.”
Put simply, the Trump administration can keep trimming the CFPB’s workforce as long as it makes case-by-case justifications for doing so.
The court also addressed—but did not overturn—a provision restricting work stoppages. It interpreted the order narrowly, allowing the administration to halt agency functions if doing so helps eliminate roles considered non-essential.
✔️ What Still Stands
Despite the partial stay, the rest of Judge Jackson’s injunction remains fully in effect. The administration must still:
Preserve certain agency records
Maintain basic public services and infrastructure
Refrain from terminating contracts or agency platforms without court approval
Support remote work and provide secure technology for employees
“All other provisions of the preliminary injunction remain in full effect pending further order of the court,” the appellate panel ruled.
🧭 What’s Next?
The case is shaping up to be a high-stakes legal fight over the future of the CFPB, an agency long opposed by conservatives and now seemingly being targeted for a slow dismantling through attrition.
The final outcome will likely hinge on how the courts interpret the limits of executive power in reorganizing independent federal agencies—especially one created specifically to shield consumers from financial abuse.
Be First to Comment