I get that the Trump administration’s flood the zone strategy means a lot of things are newsworthy right now. But I’m still surprised and disappointed at how few op-eds (or guest essays if you prefer) and editorials I’m seeing that support the CFPB. While print publications have significant limits on what they can publish because […]

Here.

Here, by Dan Ennis. The Trump administration didn’t follow the proper procedures for the firings–but the firings might be back on when/if it does. Federal District Judge James K. Bredar granted a TRO: the order is here.

Here, by Kyle Campbell. Here’s a quote: CFPB staffers have stopped signing off on redress plans from banks under consent orders, according to a CFPB examiner who is on administrative leave and asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. Because of this, even banks that want to remunerate customers are unable to do so.

So reports Jon Hill in Law360 here. Judge Matthew J. Maddox concluded the CFPB’s actions are not a final agency action.

Here, by Ali Sullivan (probably behind paywall).

The Hill has a report here and CNN here.

Here in the American Banker. Behind paywall and not yet on Lexis but here’s what Ms. Williams posted on Bluesky: “In what could be a huge win for CFPB workers, a federal judge said she is likely to issue an injunction against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s new leadership that could prevent the Trump administration […]

Politico Pro’s report (link not available). Here’s a quote: “Asked if the plan is to move forward with the firings once the court lifts its ban, [the witness] said, “That’s my understanding.”

Here at Bloomberg Law (not behind paywall). According to the article, witnesses testified that all CFPB employees would be laid off within 90 days.