CFPB litigation
Rise Economy v. Russell Vought
Date: Dec. 8, 2025
Issue: Whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by refusing to request and accept statutorily authorized funding from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (the Fed).
Case Summary: Nonprofit organizations Rise Economy, National Community Reinvestment Coalition, and Woodstock Institute (collectively, Plaintiffs) sued CFPB, alleging an unlawful effort to defund the agency.
Since becoming acting director in February 2025, Plaintiffs allege Russell Vought has moved to shut down the CFPB and stop its required consumer-protection work. Plaintiffs noted that he publicly stated in mid-October that he planned to close the agency within a few months.
Plaintiffs challenged Vought’s alleged attempt to force a shutdown by cutting off funding based on a flawed reading of the statute that created CFPB’s standing appropriation. Congress directed that CFPB receive funding through transfers from the Fed drawn from its “combined earnings.” According to Plaintiffs, CFPB has long interpreted “combined earnings” to include all revenue generated by the Federal Reserve System, an interpretation that matches the statute’s plain meaning and provides stable funding. In November 2025, CFPB reversed that interpretation, which Plaintiffs argue undermined the funding framework Congress established.
CFPB maintains the Federal Reserve System has “earnings” only when its revenues exceed interest expenses, and that no earnings are available to fund CFPB for fiscal year 2026. Based on that position, Plaintiffs allege that CFPB has refused to request funds from the Fed, warned that its reserves will run out within weeks, and began steps to shut down the agency, including transferring litigation and planning mass furloughs. Plaintiffs contend this manufactured funding crisis is unlawful because the statute requires the acting director to request the amount reasonably necessary to operate CFPB, leaves no discretion to withhold that request, and permits funding even under CFPB’s own reading of the statute.
In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege that CFPB violated the APA. The APA requires courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law. Plaintiffs assert that CFPB’s decision not to request funding from the Federal Reserve, based on its view that the Federal Reserve System lacks “combined earnings,” constitutes final agency action, which triggers judicial review under the APA.
Plaintiffs further contend that because the funding refusal is final agency action, the court must assess whether it satisfies the APA’s substantive requirements. Plaintiffs argue that the law requires Acting Director Vought to determine the amount of funding reasonably necessary to carry out CFPB’s statutory authorities and to transmit that determination to the Federal Reserve so the funds can be transferred. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that Vought failed to make or communicate that required determination at all, rendering CFPB’s refusal to request funding arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful.
Bottom Line: Plaintiffs asked the court to declare CFPB’s decision not to request funding from the Fed unlawful, to set aside that decision, and to issue preliminary and permanent relief requiring CFPB to request from the Federal Reserve the amount of funding reasonably necessary to carry out the Bureau’s authorities.
Document: Complaint
