The court-appointed CFPB defender said the petition challenging the bureau’s structure is “remarkably weak.” According to him, there is no basis “to take the grave step of invalidating an act of Congress.”

The CFPB granted a no-action letter to Bank of America regarding its funding arrangement with HUD-certified housing counseling agencies. It marks the second no-action letter under the revised policy.

The consumer watchdog sued two mortgage-related companies for allegedly selling credit reports they obtained under false pretenses to debt relief companies for their marketing purposes.

Senate Democrats urged the inspector general to investigate standards the bureau uses to calculate consumer restitution.

Important mortgage regulatory changes and robust examinations of financial institutions are on the consumer watchdog’s 2020 agenda, but all decisions are up in the air with the battle over the bureau’s constitutionality looming in court.

Mortgage industry groups have urged the Supreme Court to choose a narrow remedy approach if the CFPB’s leadership structure is found unconstitutional, in order to prevent market disruption.

Most briefs filed in the Seila Law v. CFPB case before the Supreme Court argue that the “for-cause” removal protection is not severable, and the court should invalidate the CFPB in its entirety or send the statute back to Congress.

Democratic senators have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate whether the CFPB has fulfilled its statutory obligation to combat discriminatory lending practices. Separately, Rep. Maxine Waters questioned the bureau’s potential hiring of an enforcement director.

Federal regulators are cautiously supporting the use of alternative data in loan underwriting decisions, but many uncertainties remain.

In opening briefs before the Supreme Court, a California law firm and the CFPB argued the bureau’s structure is unconstitutional, but took opposing positions on how to remedy the situation.