The Supreme Court held that, Congress did not grant the EPA the authority to devise emission caps based on the Clean Power Plan’s generation-shifting approach. The court further held that, under the major questions doctrine, an agency must point to “clear congressional authorization” when promulgating rules of “vast economic and political significance.”

The Supreme Court held that a government agency must conform to any clear legislative statements when interpreting and applying a law, but courts will give the agency deference in the interpretation of ambiguous statements as long as its interpretation is reasonable.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that CashCall engaged in a deceptive loan scheme in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act.

The Second Circuit held that non-national bank entities are not entitled to protection under the National Bank Act from state-law usury claims merely because they are assignees of a national bank.

The Supreme Court held that the removal restrictions statutorily applied to the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were unconstitutionally restrictive and severable from the rest of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Supreme Court issued an opinion on interpretive rules and whether amendments to such rules require a notice-and-comment procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act. Read on to learn what America’s highest court decided.

 The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a consent order on Feb. 4 that found that Continental Finance Company, LLC (Continental), a subprime credit card company, engaged in deceptive acts or practices by making false statements regarding fees and by misrepresenting certain security deposits as “FDIC insured.”  

In Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the requirements for rescinding a contract under the Truth in Lending Act.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is not the only entity that can file complaints for unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices under the Dodd-Frank Act. Read on to learn more about the settlement of the first lawsuit filed by a state regulator under Section 1042.

According to a Zillow employee, after he reported alleged “rampant” fraudulent activity to Zillow management, the company retaliated against him in violation of the whistleblower protections in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.