History
  • No items yet
midpage
279 F.Supp.3d 307
D.D.C.
2018
Read the full case

Background

  • CFPB Director Richard Cordray resigned effective Nov. 24, 2017; that day he appointed Leandra English Deputy Director effective at noon and announced she would serve as acting Director upon his departure.
  • President Trump designated Mick Mulvaney (OMB Director) as acting CFPB Director under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) effective Nov. 25, 2017; OLC and CFPB General Counsel advised the designation was lawful.
  • English sued seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction to bar Mulvaney and require recognition of her as acting Director under the Dodd-Frank Act’s Deputy Director provision.
  • The legal dispute centers on statutory interpretation: whether Dodd-Frank’s Deputy Director provision displaces the FVRA (5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.), and if not, whether Mulvaney is a permissible FVRA selection.
  • The Court denied English’s request for a preliminary injunction, finding she was unlikely to succeed on the merits, failed to show irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored defendants.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the FVRA applies to the CFPB Director vacancy English: Dodd-Frank’s Deputy Director "shall...serve as acting Director" displaces FVRA for CFPB vacancies Defendants: FVRA applies because CFPB is an Executive agency and FVRA’s text covers PAS offices FVRA applies to CFPB; by its terms the FVRA authorizes presidential designation
Whether Dodd-Frank’s Deputy Director provision expressly displaces the FVRA English: "shall" is mandatory and, combined with Dodd-Frank’s express-statement clause, excludes FVRA Defendants: statutes can be harmonized; FVRA’s exclusivity provision leaves room for agency-specific provisions; no clear, express displacement Court: statutes harmonizable; Dodd-Frank does not expressly displace FVRA; English unlikely to show implied repeal or express displacement
Whether Mulvaney (OMB Director) is disqualified from serving as acting CFPB Director English: Mulvaney is a White House official and CFPB is an "independent" bureau, so Dodd-Frank forbids such a dual role Defendants: Dodd-Frank contains no textual bar to a PAS officer (like OMB Director) serving as acting CFPB Director; FVRA limits pool to confirmed PAS officers which preserves some Senate role Court: Nothing in Dodd-Frank disqualifies Mulvaney; Mulvaney validly designated under FVRA §3345(a)(2)
Whether preliminary injunction prerequisites are met English: she will be irreparably harmed and likely to succeed on the merits Defendants: English unlikely to prevail; no irreparable harm shown; public interest favors clarity and continuity Court: English failed to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm; injunction denied

Key Cases Cited

  • Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (statutory text governs even if other policy outcomes might be preferable)
  • Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014) (statutory interpretation precedent cited for need to apply text)
  • NLRB v. SW Gen., Inc., 137 S. Ct. 929 (2017) (discussing FVRA background and acting-officer statutes)
  • Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions)
  • Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc., 816 F.3d 550 (9th Cir. 2016) (agency-specific statute and FVRA can coexist; President may elect between alternatives)
  • Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477 (2010) (separation-of-powers and executive removal/appointment context)
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defs. of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (presumption against implied repeals)
  • PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (context on CFPB structure and powers)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: English v. Trump
Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia
Date Published: Jan 10, 2018
Citations: 279 F.Supp.3d 307; Civil Action No. 2017-2534
Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2017-2534
Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.
Log In
    English v. Trump, 279 F.Supp.3d 307