“This lawsuit cobbles together an array of disparate challenges to the constitutionality of three titles of an act of Congress and the constitutionality of the president’s appointment of an executive officer,” the government said in the motion. “Despite the roving allegations of unconstitutionality set forth in the amended complaint, not one of the statutorily authorized actions that plaintiffs speculate might someday cause them harm has yet occurred. As such, each of the plaintiffs’ various claims of injury falls far short of the imminent, non-conjectural injury required to demonstrate Article III standing and, for similar reasons, each of their claims is unripe.”
In June, several groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the State National Bank of Big Spring Texas and the 60 Plus Association filed suit against multiple provisions of the law, alleging that the appointment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s director was unconstitutional, that the creation of the Financial Stability Oversight Council was unconstitutional and that Titles I and X of Dodd-Frank compromise the system of checks and balances.
Michigan, Oklahoma and South Carolina joined the suit in September.
“Constitutional litigation, however, is not a matter of closing the barn door after the horses have bolted and rampaged the town,” the CEI said. “We believe that the issues raised in this case are ripe and that plaintiffs are entitled to adjudicate them. And our basis for saying this will be fully set out in our response to the government’s motion.”