# Seila Law v. CFPB **Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau**, 591 U.S. 197, decided **June 29, 2020**, held that the [[CFPB]]'s structure, a single director removable by the President only for cause, violated the separation of powers. It is the case that turned the [[Unitary Executive Theory]] from a dissenting position into a working majority, and it set up everything that followed in [[Removal Power]]. ## The dispute Seila Law was a small California firm selling debt-relief services. In 2017 the CFPB served it with a civil investigative demand, a subpoena-like order for documents. The firm refused to comply, arguing that the agency issuing the demand was unconstitutionally structured. The lower courts enforced the demand. The Supreme Court took the structural question, and because the Justice Department agreed with Seila Law on the merits, it appointed an outside lawyer, Paul Clement, to defend the statute. ## The holding - **Merits (5–4).** Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] wrote, joined by [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Samuel Alito]], [[Neil Gorsuch]] and [[Brett Kavanaugh]]. The default is at-will removal under *Myers*. The Court confined the exceptions to two: [[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]] for multi-member expert bodies that do not wield substantial executive power, and [[Morrison v. Olson]] for an [[Inferior Officer]] with limited duties. A single director who can issue binding rules, bring enforcement actions and impose penalties across the economy fit neither. Roberts added that "the logic of *Morrison* also does not apply." - **Remedy (7–2).** Roberts, joined by Alito and Kavanaugh, found the removal clause severable. The four dissenters, led by [[Elena Kagan]], agreed on that point. The CFPB survived, with a director the President could fire at will. Thomas and Gorsuch would have refused to enforce the demand at all. - **Kagan's dissent** argued that the Constitution says nothing about firing subordinates, and that the majority had built a rule from the Take Care Clause and selective history. The case was sent back to decide whether a later director's ratification cured the defect. The investigation went forward. ## What followed - *Collins v. Yellen* (June 23, 2021, Alito) extended the rule to the single-director FHFA. That same day, [[Joe Biden]] replaced the Trump-appointed FHFA director. The shareholders did not get the Fannie and Freddie profit sweep undone: the Court held that an unconstitutional removal clause voids agency action only if it actually caused harm. - The CFPB's funding was upheld 7–2 in 2024, so the agency outlived *Seila Law*. It did not survive what came next: [[Russell Vought]]'s 2025 effort to wind it down, covered at [[CFPB]]. - The larger payoff came on **June 29, 2026**, six years to the day, when [[Trump v. Slaughter]] overruled *Humphrey's Executor* itself. *Seila Law* had already confined *Humphrey's* to its 1935 facts; *Slaughter* removed what was left. ## See also - [[Removal Power]] · [[Unitary Executive Theory]] · [[Special Counsel Appointment and Removal Flow]] - [[Morrison v. Olson]] · [[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]] · [[Trump v. Slaughter]] · [[Trump v. Cook]] - [[CFPB]] · [[FHFA]] · [[Edmond v. United States]] · [[SpaceX v. NLRB]]