A group of 21 current and former members of Congress and a group of 10 consumer advocacy organizations have filed amicus briefs in support of the CFPB’s petition filed with the D.C. Circuit seeking a rehearing of its decision in CFPB v PHH Corporation.
Under D.C. Circuit Rules, “[n]o amicus curiae brief in response to or in support of a petition for rehearing en banc will be received by the clerk except by invitation of the court.” Nevertheless, the two groups filed their briefs together with motions requesting an invitation from the court.
In its response to those motions, PHH “take[s] no position on the question whether the Court should invite amicus briefs on the rehearing petition and thus on the merits of the motions.” However, PHH states that “the submission of the briefs together with the motions appears to conflict with the plain language of [the Circuit Rule].” PHH asserts that allowing potential amici to submit briefs prior to an invitation “undermines the purpose of the Rule” and asks the court to clarify if its Rule “permits the submission of amicus briefs at the rehearing stage in this manner.”
PHH also comments that the court “need not invite or accept for filing briefs that are redundant of the CFPB’s petition or of the amicus brief that the Court has invited from the Solicitor General.” In an order filed on November 23, 2016, the D.C. Circuit directed PHH to file a response to the CFPB’s petition and invited the Solicitor General to file a response.
Both amicus briefs contend that the D.C. Circuit’s decision threatens the CFPB’s ability to fulfill its consumer protection role and was wrongly decided because it is at odds with U.S. Supreme Court precedent.