By Douglas Gillison
WASHINGTON, Feb 24 (Reuters) – Judges in Washington’s federal appeals court on Tuesday appeared skeptical of Trump administration claims that federal courts do not have the power to block the government from firing the vast majority of workers at the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The consumer watchdog has been largely on ice since February of last year while the administration battles in court for permission to decimate if not eliminate its workforce, which officials attempted to do on two occasions.
Top administration officials have called for the CFPB’s elimination, calling it a politicized burden on free enterprise, but in court the administration has claimed it does not intend to do this.
In a hearing before the full bench of 11 judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur faced insistent questions, testing his position that a lower court exceeded its jurisdiction last year by blocking the mass firings and finding that the government did plan to shut the agency down.
McArthur told the court that a specialized labor panel known as the Merit Systems Protection Board was the place for workers to challenge their firings and acknowledged that the administration did not have the power to shut the CFPB down entirely because Congress mandated that it exist.
“If we were to affirm the district court’s finding that the government intended to shut down the agency, that changes the landscape doesn’t it?” asked Judge Cornelia Pillard.
McArthur acknowledged that the executive branch must observe the law but said “courts do not have unbridled authority to enforce that obligation.”
The Trump administration is also currently seeking to weaken the independent MSPB’s power to review government decisions.
Jennifer Bennett, a lawyer representing a CFPB employee union, which sued to stop the administration’s actions, said Congress did not intend for the MSPB to decide constitutional matters over the separation of powers.
“The claim here is not ‘I shouldn’t have been laid off’… but ‘this agency should not have been shut down,'” she said. “I heard the defendants admit that that claim can proceed in court.”
In a split decision in August, a three-judge panel at the appeals court had initially overruled the lower court, finding that it lacked jurisdiction. But this court’s full bench in December reinstated the lower court’s order, agreeing to reconsider the matter.
(Reporting by Douglas Gillison in Washington; Editing by Aurora Ellis)
Comments