In a significant procedural development in the ongoing litigation over the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has issued an order granting a limited remand to the district court in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, while denying the CFPB’s request to immediately modify the stay pending appeal.
The June 19, 2026 order does not resolve the fundamental question presented in the case—namely, the extent of the Executive Branch’s authority to dramatically reduce the CFPB’s workforce and operations without congressional action. Instead, the order returns the case to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson so that she may determine whether the preliminary injunction currently preventing large-scale reductions in force should be modified, suspended, or dissolved in light of developments that have occurred since the injunction was entered.
Background
The lawsuit was filed after Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought and other Administration officials took a series of actions that employee organizations alleged were intended to dismantle the CFPB and effectively prevent it from carrying out the functions assigned to it by Congress in the Consumer Financial Protection Act.
Following extensive evidentiary proceedings, Judge Jackson issued a preliminary injunction designed to preserve the CFPB’s ability to perform its statutory duties while the litigation proceeds. The injunction prohibits the CFPB from implementing mass terminations or reductions in force that would prevent the Bureau from carrying out its congressionally mandated responsibilities. The injunction also restricts the agency from terminating employees except for cause related to individual performance or misconduct and bars the destruction of CFPB records. More broadly, the injunction was intended to preserve the operational status quo and prevent actions that could effectively disable the agency before the courts determine the legality of the Administration’s restructuring efforts.
The district court concluded that plaintiffs had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the Administration lacked authority to effectively eliminate the CFPB through executive action alone where Congress has directed that the agency continue to exist and perform specified statutory functions.
The CFPB appealed, and the D.C. Circuit subsequently agreed to hear the case en banc.
The CFPB’s Revised Workforce Restructuring Plan
As previously discussed in earlier blog posts, the CFPB originally contemplated workforce reductions that would have eliminated approximately 90 percent of the Bureau’s employees, leaving only a skeletal staff.
Following the district court’s injunction and subsequent proceedings, CFPB leadership developed a revised Workforce Restructuring Plan (“WRP”). Under the revised plan, the Bureau would retain approximately 556 employees from a workforce that previously numbered approximately 1,723 employees and was reduced to approximately 1,174 employees at the time the WRP was submitted to the D.C. Circuit. According to the CFPB, the revised plan was designed to ensure that the Bureau could continue performing what agency leadership viewed as its core statutory functions while operating with a substantially smaller workforce.
The revised WRP contemplates significant reductions across virtually every CFPB division. However, unlike the earlier proposal, the revised plan would maintain staffing in supervision, enforcement, consumer response, rulemaking, research, legal, and operational functions at levels that the Bureau contends are sufficient to permit continued performance of its statutory responsibilities. The CFPB has argued that the revised plan reflects a comprehensive reassessment of staffing needs and addresses many of the concerns identified by Judge Jackson when she entered the preliminary injunction.
Relying on the revised WRP and other intervening developments, the CFPB sought relief from the D.C. Circuit that would permit implementation of the plan, notwithstanding the existing injunction.
The CFPB’s Motion
Acting CFPB Director Vought filed a motion with the en banc D.C. Circuit seeking either:
- Modification of the stay pending appeal to allow implementation of the revised Workforce Restructuring Plan; or
- A limited remand to the district court so that Judge Jackson could reconsider the preliminary injunction in light of the revised plan and other changed circumstances, with a 45-day deadline for the district court to rule.
The CFPB argued that several developments justified reconsideration of the injunction, including:
- Adoption of the revised Workforce Restructuring Plan;
- Changes relating to the Bureau’s funding and operations;
- The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., concerning the scope of injunctive relief; and
- Other developments occurring after entry of the preliminary injunction.
The plaintiffs opposed immediate modification of the stay but agreed that the district court should have the first opportunity to evaluate these new developments, but disagreed with the 45-day deadline.
The En Banc Court’s Ruling
The en banc court largely adopted that approach.
First, the court denied the CFPB’s motion to modify the stay pending appeal. As a result, the Bureau did not obtain immediate authority from the court of appeals to proceed with implementation of its revised workforce reduction plan.
Second, the court granted the CFPB’s request for a limited remand. The district court is now authorized to determine whether the preliminary injunction should be modified, suspended, or dissolved based solely on the intervening developments identified in the CFPB’s motion.
Importantly, the remand is narrowly circumscribed. Judge Jackson is not being asked to revisit the entire case or reconsider issues already before the en banc court. Instead, she will evaluate whether changed circumstances warrant modification of the injunction that has effectively prevented the CFPB from carrying out major workforce reductions.
Third, the court rejected the CFPB’s request to impose a 45-day deadline on the district court’s consideration of the matter. The Bureau had argued that prompt resolution was necessary, but the court expressed confidence that the district court would continue to handle the case expeditiously, as it has throughout the litigation.
Finally, the court granted the parties’ unopposed request to hold the appeal in abeyance while the district court conducts its review. Significantly, the en banc court expressly retained jurisdiction over the appeal. Once the district court rules, the parties can return to the D.C. Circuit and propose a schedule for further proceedings.
What the Order Means
The order represents neither a clear victory nor a clear defeat for either side.
For the CFPB, the ruling falls short of the immediate relief it sought. The Bureau did not obtain permission from the D.C. Circuit to proceed immediately with implementation of its revised workforce reduction plan.
At the same time, the Bureau succeeded in persuading the en banc court that the revised restructuring plan and other developments should be considered by the district court. The CFPB now has an opportunity to argue directly to Judge Jackson that the factual and legal landscape has changed sufficiently to justify modifying the injunction.
For the plaintiffs, the order preserves the existing injunction for the time being and prevents immediate implementation of the revised reduction-in-force plan. However, they must now defend the injunction in renewed proceedings before the district court.
Looking Ahead
The next phase of the litigation will unfold before Judge Jackson, who has presided over the case since its inception and has repeatedly expressed concern that the Administration’s actions could effectively dismantle an agency that Congress has directed to exist and perform specific statutory functions.
Her forthcoming decision on the limited remand could prove highly consequential. The central question will be whether the revised Workforce Restructuring Plan adequately addresses the concerns that led to entry of the preliminary injunction.
If Judge Jackson concludes that the revised plan would still leave the CFPB unable to perform its statutory duties, she may leave the injunction intact. Conversely, if she determines that the revised staffing levels would allow the Bureau to continue carrying out its congressionally mandated responsibilities, she could modify or dissolve portions of the injunction and permit some or all of the proposed workforce reductions to proceed.
Regardless of how Judge Jackson rules, the dispute will almost certainly return to the en banc D.C. Circuit, which continues to retain jurisdiction over the appeal and ultimately must resolve the broader legal questions concerning the Executive Branch’s authority to fundamentally reshape the CFPB absent congressional action.
Accordingly, while the June 19 order does not answer the fundamental questions at the heart of NTEU v. Vought, it establishes the procedural path by which those questions are likely to be resolved in the coming months. The district court will now assess whether the CFPB’s revised restructuring plan sufficiently preserves the Bureau’s ability to fulfill its statutory mission, while the en banc D.C. Circuit awaits the district court’s determination before addressing the larger constitutional and administrative law issues presented by the case.
In light of Judge Jackson’s prior rulings in the case, it might be wise for the CFPB to attempt to settle the case with the plaintiffs before Judge Jackson acts.