Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has surprised analysts by siding with the court's liberals to uphold the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a move that has drawn both praise and criticism.
In a 7-2 decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the CFPB, a financial watchdog agency created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. The decision surprised many, as it came despite the CFPB being a target of Republican criticism.
Justice Clarence Thomas, a conservative stalwart on the court, authored the majority opinion, which held that the CFPB's funding mechanism does not violate the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. The CFPB is uniquely authorized to draw its funding directly from the Federal Reserve System, bypassing the usual funding mechanisms laid out in the Constitution.
This unusual funding mechanism has been challenged by banking industry parties, who argued that it is unconstitutional. However, the court's majority disagreed, with Thomas writing that the statute authorizing the CFPB to draw funds from the Federal Reserve "satisfies the Appropriations Clause."
Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch strongly dissented, arguing that the decision "upholds a novel statutory scheme under which the powerful [CFPB] may bankroll its own agenda without any congressional control or oversight."
Thomas, in his majority opinion, fired back, arguing that the dissent "faults us for consulting dictionaries to ascertain the original public meaning of that word [Appropriations], insisting instead that 'Appropriations' is a 'term of art whose meaning has been fleshed out by centuries of history.'"
Thomas's authorship of the majority opinion has debunked the notion that all conservative justices decide cases in the same way, highlighting the distinctive differences in judicial philosophy among the justices.
David B. Rivkin Jr., an appellate and constitutional law attorney, commented that Thomas "marches to the beat of his own drum" and is willing to dissent if he believes it is the right course of action.
John Shu, a constitutional lawyer who worked for both Bush administrations, praised Thomas as a true originalist and textualist who interprets the law based on its text and original intent.
Shu emphasized that neither Justice Alito nor Justice Thomas are results-oriented, meaning that they do not begin with a preferred outcome in mind and try to justify it later. Instead, they follow where the law's text and original intent take them, regardless of political outcomes or backlashes.
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of the CFPB has been hailed as a victory for consumer protection advocates, while Republicans have expressed disappointment. The decision has also sparked debate about the role of the judiciary in interpreting the Constitution and protecting the interests of the American people.
