The Ninth Circuit has granted Seila Law’s motion for a stay of the mandate pending its filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court ruled that the CFPB’s structure was unconstitutional and remanded the case for further consideration, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel ruled that the civil investigative demand (CID) issued to Seila Law was validly ratified by former Director Kraninger and affirmed the district court’s decision granting the CFPB’s petition to enforce the CID.

Following a sua sponte request from a Ninth Circuit judge for a vote on whether to rehear the case en banc, a majority of the non-recused Ninth Circuit active judges voted against en banc reconsideration and rehearing en banc was denied.  However, four judges joined in an opinion dissenting from the denial.  In its motion for a stay of the mandate, Seila Law asserted that for the reasons given by the dissenters, “there is a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari in this case.”

The order granting the stay of the mandate was issued by the three-judge panel that ruled former Director Kraninger had validly ratified the CID issued to Seila Law.  The order provides:

The mandate is stayed for a period of 150 days from the date of this order.  If appellant files a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court during the period of the stay, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.