The Supreme Court’s big decision on the CFPB and the “unitary executive,” explained

“the justices largely focused on the question of whether the president may remove the CFPB’s sitting director at will.

A majority of the Court agreed that a president may remove the CFPB director. In the short term, that decision could benefit presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, who will be able to remove Trump’s CFPB director right away if Biden becomes president. In the long term, however, the decision could potentially empower the president to manipulate the political process.”

“So the immediate upshot of Seila Law is that the CFPB survives this attempt to strike it down in its entirety, and Democrats gain the power to remove Trump’s CFPB director if Biden is sworn in next year. But it is unlikely that we will know the full significance of Seila Law until the Court hears a new case testing its meaning.”

“Most independent agencies — including the Fed and the FCC — are led by a multi-member board.

The CFPB is unusual, though not entirely unique, in that it is led by a single director who could not be removed at will by the president. This unusual leadership structure, according to Roberts’s majority opinion, is not allowed. According to Roberts, the Constitution “scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual.””

“there are very good reasons why we do not want some agencies to be fully subject to presidential authority. If the president can threaten to fire Fed governors or FCC commissioners, those agencies might try to influence the result of an election in illegitimate ways.

And while much of Roberts’s decision focused on the CFPB’s single-director structure, it is far from clear, after Seila Law, whether multi-member agencies like the FCC or the Fed may remain independent.”