Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
The Court held that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, with a single director removable only "for cause," violated the constitutional separation of powers principle.· AI-written
140 S. Ct. 2183 · No. 19-7 · 2019 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jun 29, 2020 · argued Mar 3, 2020
Miscellaneous · Executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states
Struck down an act of Congress
Majority opinion: John Roberts
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Vacated and remanded. Seila Law LLC won.
What this ruling means
Vacated and remanded: the Supreme Court set aside the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, wiping it out without necessarily saying the result was wrong, and sent the case back for that court to decide again under the right legal standard.
Seila Law LLC was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers principle in the U.S. Constitution. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the President of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.
The Court recognized that the President may generally remove officers at will. However, the Court stated that there were two exceptions to this rule. First, the President's removal power may be constrained by Congress if the officer in question is a member of an agency that shares similar characteristics to the Federal Trade Commission as discussed in Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935). Second, Congress may constrain the President's removal power over "inferior officers with limited duties and no policymaking" role as discussed in Morrison v. Olson (1988). The Court declined to extend the exceptions to "an independent agency led by a single director and vested with significant executive power."
The Court also held that the directorship position was severable from the statute that established the CFPB, allowing the CFPB to continue to operate.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2019 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
John RobertsWrote the majority opinion
Clarence ThomasWrote a concurrence
Brett KavanaughJoined the majority
Neil GorsuchJoined the majority
Samuel AlitoJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Elena KaganWrote a dissent
Sonia SotomayorJoined a dissent
Ruth GinsburgJoined a dissent
Stephen BreyerJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Seila Law LLCAttorney, or person acting as such;includes bar applicant or law student, or law firm or bar association
- Respondent
- Consumer Financial Protection BureauNot listed among agencies in the first Administrative Action variable
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Article II, Section 1 (executive power)
- Kind of law
- Constitution
- Decided by
- Judicial review (national level)
- Struck down
- An act of Congress, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 29, 2020DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: vacated and remanded. Seila Law LLC won.
- Mar 3, 2020ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California Central U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states, newest first.
- Trump v. SlaughterLandmark · Separation of powers146 S. Ct. 2283Jun 29, 2026 · 146 S. Ct. 2283MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers6–36–3 band
- Learning Resources v. TrumpLandmark · Foreign607 U.S. 229Feb 20, 2026 · 607 U.S. 229MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited601 U.S. 416May 16, 2024 · 601 U.S. 416Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- Collins v. Yellen141 S. Ct. 1761Jun 23, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1761Miscellaneous7–27–2 band
- United States v. Arthrex Inc.141 S. Ct. 1970Jun 21, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 1970Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPLandmark · Domestic140 S. Ct. 2019Jul 9, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 2019MiscellaneousLandmark · Domestic7–27–2 band
- NLRB v. SW General, Inc.137 S. Ct. 929Mar 21, 2017 · 137 S. Ct. 929Miscellaneous6–27–2 band
- Zivotofsky v. KerryLandmark · Foreign576 U.S. 1Jun 8, 2015 · 576 U.S. 1MiscellaneousLandmark · Foreign6–36–3 band
- NLRB v. Noel CanningLandmark · Separation of powers573 U.S. 513Jun 26, 2014 · 573 U.S. 513MiscellaneousLandmark · Separation of powers9–0Unanimous band
- Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky, by His Parents and Guardians, Ari Z. and Naomi Siegman Zivotofsky, Petitioner v. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State566 U.S. 189Mar 26, 2012 · 566 U.S. 189Miscellaneous8–18–1 band
- Free Enterprise Fund and Beckstead and Watts, LLP v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board et al.561 U.S. 477Jun 28, 2010 · 561 U.S. 477Miscellaneous5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.