CFPB’s Union Asks For Clarification On Vought Injunction

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s union, represented by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), has asked a federal court to clarify the scope of Judge Jackson’s injunction against Acting Director Russell Vought regarding the bureau’s funding. The request follows Vought’s decision not to seek new funding for the CFPB, which the union argues may violate a preliminary injunction that restricts mass firings and the shutdown of bureau activities imposed earlier this year.​

Background on the Injunction

Judge Jackson’s preliminary injunction was issued in March, barring the Trump administration from executing mass layoffs, canceling contracts, or taking other actions aimed at shutting down the CFPB. This move was in response to Plaintiff claims that such actions violated statutory mandates and separation of powers principles, as Congress explicitly established the CFPB and its funding structure through the Dodd-Frank Act.​

Union’s Request for Clarification

• The union’s motion asks the court to specify that refusing to request funding from the Federal Reserve is not a legitimate reason for violating the injunction.

• The NTEU argues that the Federal Reserve does have sufficient earnings to fund the CFPB and that agency leadership’s refusal to seek funding is an attempt to circumvent the injunction’s protections for both employees and bureau operations.​

• In addition, the union points out that no prior court, the CFPB, or the Federal Reserve itself has interpreted the funding statute as the Trump administration now does.

Operational Impacts

With Vought’s refusal to request new funding, the CFPB has informed legal staff about possible furloughs and the transfer of its active litigation and legal work to the Justice Department. The agency has warned that current funds will run out in early 2026, raising concerns about continued enforcement and public protection activities if the clarification is not granted.​

Litigation Status

The request to clarify the injunction comes amid broader legal battles over agency reductions and shutdown efforts. The appellate court partially vacated and stayed parts of the injunction earlier this year, but the district court continues to address specific executive actions, such as halting funding, that may contravene explicit judicial orders.​

The NTEU’s motion presents several key legal arguments regarding Acting Director Vought’s refusal to seek funding for the CFPB:

Main Legal Arguments

• The NTEU contends that refusing to request funding from the Federal Reserve is a novel and unsupported interpretation of the Dodd-Frank Act’s funding provisions. The motion highlights that neither the CFPB, the Federal Reserve, nor any court has previously adopted Vought’s view that a lack of Federal Reserve “profitability” prohibits funding requests.​

• The union argues that the Federal Reserve has sufficient “combined earnings” and asserts that Vought’s position has no statutory or factual basis. Therefore, there is no justification for the administration’s claim that it cannot seek additional funding for the CFPB.​

• The motion states that the executive branch may not use refusal to request funds as a pretext to circumvent or violate the court’s preliminary injunction, which was intended to protect both the agency’s ongoing operations and its employees.​

• The NTEU draws a parallel to a recent Rhode Island district court case, where a similar executive attempt to dismantle federal agencies was found to exceed constitutional and statutory authority, reinforcing the argument that the court’s injunction should clearly prohibit such actions.​

These arguments are directed at securing a court declaration that the administration’s current course of action would breach the established injunction and threaten the existence and functions of the CFPB.​

In summary, the CFPB’s union seeks clear judicial guidance that prohibits agency leadership from using funding refusals as a means to override protections set by the court-ordered injunction, ensuring the bureau’s continued operation and adherence to statutory obligations.​