Amicus Brief

Download the amicus brief submitted by the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC (Cohen Milstein) to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  (CFPB) on behalf of their clients, community development financial institutions (CDFIs) Self-Help Credit Union, Hope Enterprise Corporation / Hope Credit Union (HOPE), Inclusiv, and the National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders (NALCAB).

Currently in the United States, approximately 43 million people owe over $1.4 trillion on their federal student loans. Americans owe more in student loan debt than for auto loans, credit cards, or any other non-mortgage debt.2 Student loan servicers play a critical role in these borrowers’ financial lives, from receiving and applying payments to interacting with struggling borrowers to facilitate repayment and prevent default. A competent servicer can assist financially distressed borrowers in accessing income-driven repayment (“IDR”). Unfortunately, servicer misrepresentations can increase...

The brief filed in Student Loan Servicing Alliance v. Taylor, et al. urges the court to reject the plaintiff loan servicer association’s “federal preemption” argument, which claims that existing federal law bars states and the District from engaging in any regulatory oversight of loan servicers. As the brief highlights, this preemption argument is legally unfounded and unwise. In fact, D.C.’s efforts to regulate loan servicers finds strong support in legal precedent and sound policy to prevent disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable student borrowers and communities, especially...

An application to file brief and brief of amici curiae, Center for Responsible Lending, National Association of Consumer Advocates, Public Citizen Inc, and Public Good Law Center in support of applelants, Eduardo de la Torre, et al.

Before the court in the above styled and numbered cause is the parties' Joint Motion for Stay of Litigation and Stay of Agency Action Pending Review filed May 31, 2018 (Clerk's Document No. 16). By the motion the parties move the court for the following: (1) a stay of this litigation pending agency rulemaking to reconsider Defendant Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (the "Bureau") final rule on payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans (the "Payday Rule"); (2) a stay of the compliance date set forth in the Payday Rule until 445 days after final judgment in this...

On May 31, 2018, the parties to this action filed a joint motion asking the Court to stay both this litigation and the principal compliance date of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)’s regulation on payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans, 12 C.F.R. part 1041 (“Payday Rule”), at issue in the case. In support of their request for a stay of the rule’s compliance date, the parties rely on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 705. Because section 705 does not authorize a stay in the circumstances of this case and because the Court lacks adversarial...

Ten groups filed this amicus brief in support of the continued independence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This brief appeals the trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction allowing Leandra English to serve as acting director of the CFPB. The litigation regarding whether the lawful acting director is English or U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney continues.

This amicus brief, filed on behalf of ten consumer advocacy groups in support of English’s motion for a preliminary injunction, explains the importance of confirming English's position for the American consumer.

The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), and New Economy Project filed an amicus brief in Roberts v. Capital One Financial Corporation, in support of the plaintiff, Tawanna M. Roberts, against Capital One’s misleading overdraft fee practice. In the brief, submitted earlier this month, the group urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overturn a district court ruling in favor of the bank.

CRL, The Public Good Law Center, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates filed an amicus brief supporting an appeal by plaintiffs asserting that loans made by the payday lender CashCall were unconscionable and violated California's Unfair Competition Law. Courts and the common law have long recognized that excessive interest rates and prices are unconscionable and therefore "unfair" and "unlawful." Under the terms of loans made by CashCall, borrowers taking out $2,600 loans would pay $11,000 to pay them back if carried to full term—over four times the amount originally borrowed.