CFPB, Federal Agencies, State Agencies, and Attorneys General
Could the third time be the charm? Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari filed in May 2014 by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Texas DHCA) in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
The case gives the Supreme Court its third opportunity since 2012 to rule on the issue of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. … Continue Reading
Since the CFPB issued its guidance on indirect auto finance in March 2013, lawmakers and industry have been asking the CFPB to provide details concerning its methodology and proxies for analyzing potential fair lending violations. While the CFPB has provided some information in response to letters from lawmakers, its responses have left many questions unanswered.… Continue Reading
Because of their potential impact on the CFPB’s conclusion that the ECOA and Regulation B encompass disparate impact claims, we have been following two insurance industry lawsuits involving a challenge to HUD’s Federal Housing Act (FHA) disparate impact rule, with one lawsuit filed in federal district court in D.C. and the other filed in an Illinois federal district court.… Continue Reading
As we reported, the petition for certiorari filed in May 2014 by the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Texas DHCA) in Inclusive Communities Project v. Texas Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs could give the U.S. Supreme Court its third opportunity since 2012 to provide clarity with respect to disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act and (by analogy) the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. … Continue Reading
We have been following the lawsuit in federal district court in D.C. in which two insurance industry trade associations have challenged the HUD disparate impact rule. The complaint in the D.C. action, which was commenced in June 2013, alleges that the text of the FHA does not proscribe facially-neutral practices that have discriminatory effects. … Continue Reading
The FY 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Act (H.R. 4660) passed by the House of Representatives includes an amendment (H. Amdt. 768) that prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from using any of the funding provided by the Act to enforce the Fair Housing Act using a disparate impact theory. … Continue Reading
The U.S. Supreme Court could have its third opportunity since 2012 to provide clarity with respect to disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act and (by analogy) the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. After losing on appeal to the Fifth Circuit in March, the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (Texas DHCA) recently filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking the Court to again answer the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the FHA. … Continue Reading
As we previously reported, the House Financial Services Committee has been interested in the specific methodology and metrics used by the CFPB in its disparate impact analysis under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B. On March 7, Chairman Hensarling sent a letter to Director Cordray seeking a response to the Committee’s questions, and it appears the CFPB has yet to respond to the letter.… Continue Reading
As we previously reported, last Friday House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) sent a letter to CFPB Director Richard Cordray asking for a response by March 13 to specific questions about the methodology and analyses employed by the CFPB in determining whether dealer finance charge participations violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B.… Continue Reading
Since last March, when the CFPB issued Bulletin No. 2013-02, its highly controversial release warning banks and finance companies that purchase motor vehicle installment sales contracts that, under existing law, any dealer finance charge participation may violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, numerous members of Congress have been unsuccessful in seeking clear and precise information from the CFPB as to how it determines that practices that are neutral on their face are nonetheless discriminatory. … Continue Reading
