Appropriations Clause

The Appropriations Clause authorizes Congress to spend money and requires that it keep a record of the expenditures. Specifically, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 states:

“  |  No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.  |  ”

|
|

## CFPB v. CFSA[edit]

On a petition granted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of CFPB v. CFSA, No. 22-448 (CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU V. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LIMITED), appealing CFSA v. CFPB, 51 F.4th 616 (all Trump-appointed panel of the Fifth Circuit, Case No. 21-50826).

QUESTION PRESENTED:

“  |  Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), 12 U.S.C. 5497, violates the Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I,§ 9, Cl. 7, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the CFPB was receiving such funding.  |  ”

|
|

CERT. GRANTED 2/27/2023

The U.S. cited the following decisions to overturn a Fifth Circuit decision narrowing the scope of the Appropriations Clause:

* Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320 (2015)
* Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
* Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316 (2020)
* Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937)
* Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)
* Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021) (severability required when a provision is unconstitutional)
* Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010)
* Harrington v. Bush, 553 F.2d 190 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
* Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019)
* Lebron v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995)
* Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993)
* Maricopa County v. Lopez-Valenzuela, 574 U.S. 1006 (2014)
* OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414 (1990)
* PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018), abrogated on other grounds by Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020)
* Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. (11 How.) 272 (1851)
* Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981)
* Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) (severability required when a provision is unconstitutional)
* United Biscuit Co. of Am. v. Wirtz, 359 F.2d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert denied, 384 U.S. 971 (1966)
* United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021) (severability required when a provision is unconstitutional)
* United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct. 1575 (2020)
* United States v. Vaello Madero, 142 S. Ct. 1539 (2022)
* United States Dep’t of the Navy v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 665 F.3d 1139 (D.C. Cir. 2012)
* Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008)