Seila Law has sent a letter advising the Ninth Circuit that it will not seek further review from 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.  Seila Law then filed a motion for a stay of the mandate pending its filing of a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.  Subsequently, the three-judge panel that ruled former Director Kraninger had validly ratified the CID granted Seila Law’s motion for a stay of the mandate.

While Seila Law’s decision not to file a certiorari petition presumably means that it no longer plans to challenge the CFPB’s authority to issue the CID, it is possible Seila Law may seek to challenge the CID on other grounds.