Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU—D.C. Cir.: Court denies CFPB bid to move ahead with RIF plan, grants limited remand
    • FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM—ICBA asks Kansas City Fed to review Kraken’s access to payment systems
    • FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY—BPI warns AI makes cyber defense harder, but tools are available
    • FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY—Senators introduce bill to study fintech deals with banks, credit unions
    • REGULATION TRACKER—Upcoming comment deadlines and effective dates
    • VITAL BRIEFING—U.S. trade office zeroes in on forced labor import practices
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Banking and Finance Law Daily Wrap Up, CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU—D.C. Cir.: Court denies CFPB bid to move ahead with RIF plan, grants limited remand, (Jun 22, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Gupta Wessler LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Franklin Lake Resources, Inc. | Gupta Wessler, PLLC | National Treasury Employees Union | U.S. Department of Justice

    By Shashi Kant Yadav, B.A. LL.B., LL.M.

    The D.C. Circuit refused to modify the stay pending appeal but sent the case back to the district court to consider intervening developments.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Consumer Financial Protection Burea ...

    By Shashi Kant Yadav, B.A. LL.B., LL.M.

    The D.C. Circuit refused to modify the stay pending appeal but sent the case back to the district court to consider intervening developments.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s request to modify a stay pending appeal in litigation over a preliminary injunction blocking workforce reductions at the Bureau. In a per curiam order, the en banc court granted a limited remand to allow the district court to decide whether to modify, suspend, or dissolve the preliminary injunction in light of the CFPB’s revised reduction-in-force plan and other intervening developments identified by the Bureau. The court also granted the Bureau’s unopposed request to hold the appeal in abeyance while retaining jurisdiction over the appeal (National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, No. 25-5091 (D.C. Cir. June 19, 2026)).

    Limited remand. The CFPB and Acting Director Russell Vought had asked the D.C. Circuit to modify the stay pending appeal, grant a limited remand, and place the appeal in abeyance. The court denied the request to modify the stay but granted the request for remand. The remand is limited to allowing the district court to consider only the intervening developments identified in the appellants’ motion, including the Bureau’s revised Reduction In Force (RIF) plan.

    The court noted that the appellees did not oppose a remand for that purpose. However, the court denied the appellants’ request to impose a 45-day limit on the remand, which the appellees opposed. The court said the district court has moved expeditiously throughout the litigation and assumed that it would continue to do so on remand. The en banc court will retain jurisdiction over the appeal. The district court was asked to notify the D.C. Circuit promptly after deciding the issues presented by the limited remand. Unless the D.C. Circuit directs otherwise, the parties must file motions to govern future appellate proceedings within 21 days after the district court’s decision. Judges Millett, Pillard, Childs, and Pan said they would wait until the legal questions pending before the en banc court are resolved before remanding the case to the district court.

    Background. The CFPB had sought permission to implement a revised workforce restructuring plan while its appeal from the district court’s preliminary injunction remained pending. The Bureau argued that intervening developments changed the basis for the injunction, including Vought’s approval of a revised RIF plan, Supreme Court guidance on the scope of injunctive relief, and congressional changes affecting CFPB funding. The Bureau also asked for a time-limited remand and for the appeal to be held in abeyance. The NTEU and other plaintiffs opposed allowing the Bureau to proceed immediately with the revised reduction plan. They argued that any request to modify or dissolve the preliminary injunction should be presented to the district court first and that the Bureau had not shown a need for immediate appellate intervention (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Apr. 28, 2026).

    Warren statement. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, said the D.C. Circuit rejected the Trump administration’s latest request to shut down the CFPB by refusing to lift the injunction that has prevented Vought from carrying out what she described as a plan to eliminate the agency. Warren also said courts would have an opportunity to review Vought’s most recent plan to sideline the CFPB by firing most of its remaining staff. She said the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion directly to consumers.

    Judge: Per curiam.

    Attorneys: Deepak Gupta (Gupta Wessler LLP) for National Treasury Employees Union. Simon Gregory Jerome, U.S. Department of Justice, for Russell T. Vought.

    Companies: National Treasury Employees Union

    MainStory: TopStory CFPB DirectorsOfficersEmployers DistrictofColumbiaNews DoddFrankAct FederalReserveSystem

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use