Amicus Brief

The CFPB plays an integral role in the nation’s financial system. The Bureau’s work ensures that the system functions in a manner that is responsive to the interests of all market participants—consumers, large financial entities, and smaller institutions like Amici. Congress’s chosen method of funding the Bureau underpins the Bureau’s ability to do this important work, free from the outsized influence of any one market segment. Petitioners’ brief convincingly demonstrates that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution—or any decisions of this Court—supports the Fifth Circuit’s...

From the introduction of the brief: Since the founding of our nation, states have limited interest rates as the primary protection against predatory lending. Evasions of usury laws are as old as the laws, but courts consistently look beyond form to the substance of the transaction to prevent subterfuge. Ever since banks were provided with legislative exemptions from state usury laws, nonbank lenders have tried to use “rent-a-bank” arrangements to avoid state interest rate laws. But courts look beyond the nominal bank that funded and put its name on a loan, holding that state usury laws apply...

From the introduction of the brief: Since the founding of our nation, states have limited interest rates as the primary protection against predatory lending. Evasions of usury laws are as old as the laws, but courts consistently look beyond form to the substance of the transaction to prevent subterfuge. Ever since banks were provided with legislative exemptions from state usury laws, nonbank lenders have tried to use “rent-a-bank” arrangements to avoid state interest rate laws. But courts look beyond the nominal bank that funded and put its name on a loan, holding that state usury laws apply...

From the brief’s introductory passage: Imbued with the spirit of the American dream, and in reliance on the DACA program, enrollees have made substantial investments in themselves, their families, and their communities. Contrary to the government’s assertion in its brief to this Court (e.g., Pet. Br. 46), the DACA enrollees are not engaged in “ongoing illegal activity” or “ongoing violation of federal law.” To the contrary, under DACA and with the government’s permission, enrollees are legally engaged in educational, tax-paying, teaching, and military activities. See, e.g., Case No. 18-589 Pet...

On July 8, the Center for Responsible Lending, California Reinvestment Coalition, Consumer Federation of California, National Consumer Law Center, Public Law Center, and UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice filed an amicus brief in Los Angeles County (California) Superior Court in Opportunity Financial v. Hewlett. Opportunity Financial v. Hewlett addresses the legality of Opportunity Financial’s “rent-a-bank” scheme, whereby OppFi makes loans in California in excess of the state’s rate caps by laundering those loans through an out-of-state bank that is exempt from state rate...

The Center for Responsible Lending, Legal Aid of North Carolina, North Carolina Justice Center, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Charlotte Center for Legal Advocacy, Financial Protection Law Center and Pisgah Legal Services partnered to filed this amicus brief in the North Carolina Supreme Court in Townes v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (PRA). Townes v. PRA is principally about the interpretation of CEPA, NC’s consumer protection statute, and its requirement that debt buyers to produce “itemized accounting” of alleged debts. Plaintiff Ms. Townes is advocating for a bare minimum...

From the amicus brief: Unpaid court debt balloons over time as fines and the costs of collection accrue; low-income people risk wage garnishment, asset forfeiture, loss of credit, and even incarceration as collateral consequences of their continued entanglement with the criminal justice system. These burdens fall most heavily on people of color, who are arrested and placed on probation at disproportionate rates compared to white people.

Today the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) filed this brief in the Supreme Court in support of Thelma McCoy's petition to have the court take up undue hardship discharge for student debt in bankruptcy. Currently and for some time, different courts of appeal have split in how they interpret what is "undue hardship," with some courts taking a holistic "totality of the circumstances" approach and others following a rigid, demanding test known as the Brunner test. A number of courts representing some of the Blackest areas in the country such as the Fifth Circuit, have interpreted Brunner in...

Civil rights and consumer groups -- Center for Responsible Lending, National Consumer Law Center, East Bay Community Law Center, National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders, and National Coalition for Asian Pacific Americans Community Development – filed an amicus brief in support of the attorneys general of California, Illinois, and New York in their case against a rule from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) that encourages predatory lending through “rent-a-bank” schemes. The OCC rule facilitates non-bank lenders’ efforts to form superficial partnerships with...

From the amicus brief: This case concerns the authority of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to extend the privileges of national banks to entities that do not accept deposits and are not banks in any traditional or legal sense. The foremost reason why non-banks will seek out a “special purpose national bank” is to take advantage of preemption of state consumer protection laws, particularly interest rate caps. High-cost predatory lenders are eager to evade state laws that limit them from charging usurious rates.