Volume 601 U. S. Part 2 Pages 416–471

OFFICIAL REPORTS OF

THE SUPREME COURT May 16, 2024

Page Proof Pending Publication

REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions

NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D.C. 20543, pio@supremecourt.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors. 416 OCTOBER TERM, 2023

Syllabus

CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU et al. v. COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, LTD., et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fth circuit No. 22–448. Argued October 3, 2023—Decided May 16, 2024 The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fsc subject to the command that “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Art. I, § 9, cl. 7. For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding through annual appro- priations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, however, Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordinary annual appropriations process. Specifcally, Congress authorized the Bureau to draw from the Federal Reserve System an amount that its Director deems “reasonably necessary to carry out” the Bureau's duties, subject only to an infation-adjusted cap. 12 U. S. C. §§ 5497(a)(1), (2). In this case, several trade associations representing payday lenders and Page Proof Pending Publication credit-access businesses challenged regulations issued by the Bureau pertaining to high-interest consumer loans on statutory and constitu- tional grounds. As relevant here, the Fifth Circuit accepted the associ- ations' argument that the Bureau's funding mechanism violates the Ap- propriations Clause. Held: Congress' statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bu- reau's duties satisfes the Appropriations Clause. Pp. 424–438, 441. (a) Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specifed source of public money for des- ignated purposes. Pp. 424–435. (1) The Bureau's funding is “drawn from the Treasury” and is therefore subject to the requirements of the Appropriations Clause. The issue is whether the Bureau's funding mechanism constitutes an “Appropriatio[n] made by Law.” The Court concludes that the answer is yes based on the Constitution's text, the history against which that text was enacted, and congressional practice immediately following rati- fcation. Pp. 425–434. (i) The Constitution's use of the term “appropriation” provides im- portant insight into its meaning. The Appropriations Clause itself specifes that an appropriation must authorize withdrawals from a par- ticular source, the “Treasury.” And, the proviso limiting Congress' Cite as: 601 U. S. 416 (2024) 417

Syllabus

power to “raise and support Armies”—that “no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”—indicates that appropriations assign funds for specifc uses. Contemporary dictionary defnitions support this conclusion as well. The evidence suggests that, at a minimum, appropriations were understood as a legislative means of authorizing expenditures from public funds for designated purposes. Pp. 426–427. (ii) Pre-founding history supports the conclusion that an identifed source and purpose are all that is required for a valid appropriation. The concept of legislative appropriations grew out of the broad