Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

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 FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–448. Argued October 3, 2023—Decided May 16, 2024 The Constitution gives Congress control over the public fisc 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 ap- propriations. For the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, how- ever, Congress provided a standing source of funding outside the ordi- nary annual appropriations process. Specifically, 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 inflation-adjusted cap. 12 U. S. C. §§5497(a)(1), (2). In this case, several trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged regulations is- sued by the Bureau pertaining to high-interest consumer loans on stat- utory and constitutional grounds. As relevant here, the Fifth Circuit accepted the associations’ argument that the Bureau’s funding mech- anism violates the Appropriations Clause. Held: Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bureau’s duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause. Pp. 5–19, 22. (a) Under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. (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 2 CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU v. COMMU- NITY FINANCIAL SERVICES ASSN. OF AMERICA, LTD. Syllabus

“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 ratification. Pp. 5–15. (i) The Constitution’s use of the term “appropriation” provides important insight into its meaning. The Appropriations Clause itself specifies that an appropriation must authorize withdrawals from a particular source, the “Treasury.” And, the proviso limiting Congress’ 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 specific uses. Contemporary diction- ary definitions 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. P. 7. (ii) Pre-founding history supports the conclusion that an identi- fied source and purpose are all that is required for a valid appropria- tion. The concept of legislative appropriations grew out of the broader struggle between Parliament and the Crown for popular control of the purse in England. Parliament had little claim to direct how the Crown’s hereditary revenues were spent, but “ext