CFPB litigation
Nationwide Biweekly Administration v. CFPB
Date: March 23, 2026
Issue: Whether a party seeking retrospective relief under Collins v. Yellen may prove causation through circumstantial evidence or must produce direct evidence of presidential removal intent.
Case Summary: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision that remanded a $7.93 million Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) judgment against a mortgage services company for further analysis in light of rulings addressing the CFPB’s constitutionality.
In 2015, the CFPB sued Nationwide Biweekly Administration Inc., alleging that it engaged in deceptive and misleading practices in marketing its mortgage repayment program. Nationwide promoted its Interest Minimizer Program to help consumers pay off mortgages faster by aligning biweekly payments with pay cycles. The company operated for over a decade, serving more than 135,000 customers, and holding licenses in over 40 states. Before the CFPB sued, Nationwide resolved similar concerns through a 2010 agreement with Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. However, the CFPB filed its lawsuit in 2015 without prior warning, leading banks to cut ties with Nationwide and forcing the company to shut down its operations.
In 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of California sided with the CFPB, upholding its deceptive marketing claims, imposing a $7.93 million civil penalty, and ordering injunctive relief, but declined to award nearly $74 million in restitution. Nationwide appealed and argued the CFPB lacked constitutional authority to sue, including challenges to the agency’s structure and funding. During the appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, which held that limits on removing the CFPB director violated the separation of powers. The Court also decided Collins v. Yellen, which set the standards for what challengers must show to justify voiding past CFPB actions under Seila Law.
In a unanimous decision, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further analysis in light of these intervening constitutional rulings. The panel declined to resolve the key issues. Instead, it directed the district court to reassess the case under the current legal framework, including whether the CFPB’s actions remain valid after the constitutional rulings in Seila Law LLC and whether the agency’s funding structure complies with the Constitution. Nationwide petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review.
In its petition, Nationwide argued a circuit split exists over whether circumstantial evidence can satisfy the causation requirement under Collins. To obtain relief, a party must show that the unconstitutional removal restriction caused compensable harm by affecting the agency’s action. Nationwide explained that the Fifth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits require proof that the president of the United States would have removed the agency head. At the same time, the Second, Third and Sixth Circuits allow but for causation based on circumstantial evidence. It also maintained that Richard Cordray treated Nationwide differently under different accountability structures by collaborating as Ohio attorney general but later pursuing enforcement without engagement as CFPB director, showing that the agency’s structure altered his decision-making and caused harm. Nationwide further asserted that a constitutional remedy should not depend on geography and that the Ninth Circuit applied an overly strict standard by requiring proof of presidential intent and rejecting circumstantial evidence. It added that the Supreme Court did not limit causation to direct presidential evidence and that lower courts have misread Collins, warranting review.
Nationwide also argued that the district court’s and the Ninth Circuit’s decisions were wrong for requiring evidence of alleged constitutional violations that were impossible to obtain. For the Collins claim, Nationwide explained that the Ninth Circuit ignored extensive circumstantial evidence, including executive orders and differences in agency behavior, and instead required proof of presidential intent, even though the removal restriction precluded such evidence.
Bottom Line: The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s remand in place and requiring the district court to reassess the CFPB’s judgment under evolving constitutional standards.
Document: Petition; Ninth Circuit Order
