Plaintiffs in Dodd-Frank challenge respond to government motion to dismiss

Sam Kazman

Sam Kazman

Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act filed a response last week after the U.S. government motioned to dismiss the case.

The plaintiffs, which include the State National Bank of Big Spring, as well as the attorneys general of 11 states, said last Wednesday that the government misstated and downplayed the plaintiffs’ grievances resulting from the implementation of certain Dodd-Frank provisions, Credit Union Times reports.

State National Bank said Dodd-Frank’s compliance costs, including those of Title X, which established the CFPB, make the case legitimate. The 11 state AGs said the orderly liquidation authority established by Dodd-Frank, which allows the government to wind down a failing financial institution, hurts the states because it puts the interests of creditors before state pension funds.

Sam Kazman, the general counsel of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted a January ruling by a federal appeals court that declared the appointment of Richard Cordray to the position of CFPB director, as well as the appointments of three individuals to the National Labor Board, unconstitutional.

“Rather than address the constitutional validity of this law, the federal government has, through its motion to dismiss, chosen to attack the standing of 11 states, two nonprofit groups and one small but courageous community bank in Texas, as well as the ripeness of their claims,” Kazman said, according to Credit Union Times. “We look forward to the court’s resolution of these preliminary issues, and we are hopeful that we’ll be able to proceed to litigate the merits of our case.”

Comments are closed.