US Supreme Court rejects challenge to top consumer finance agency

This article picked by a teacher with suggested questions is part of the Financial Times free schools access programme. Details/registration here.

Read our full range of politics picks here.

Specification:

• AQA Component 3.2.1.4: The judicial branch of government: strict and loose constructionism

• Edexcel Component 4.6: Interpretations and debates of the US Supreme Court and civil rights: Living Constitution ideology as against originalism

Background: what you need to know

The US Supreme Court has ruled by a 7-2 majority that federal funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (an independent agency which protects the interests of consumers in the financial sector) is constitutional. The two justices who reached a minority verdict were conservatives Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito. Conservatives had lobbied against the funding of the body on the grounds that the bureau should not be able to determine its own funding without Congressional oversight. However, the majority upheld the way in which the CFPB is financed.

The case is interesting because the majority decision was written by Clarence Thomas, a very conservative justice, who adheres to the notion of ‘originalism’ — the idea that the constitution should be interpreted as the founding fathers intended. He argued that, like the post office and customs in the 1700s, the funding of the CFPB meets the requirements of the constitution’s appropriations clause, which authorises the expenditure of public funds for designated purposes.

Click the link below to read the article and then answer the questions:

US Supreme Court rejects challenge to top consumer finance agency

Question in the style of AQA Politics Paper 2

Question in the style of Edexcel Politics Paper 3

• Evaluate the view that the US Supreme Court’s effectiveness is weakened by disagreement over how to interpret the constitution. You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. [30 marks]

   

  TIP: Make sure that you understand the concept of originalism and its opposite, Living Constitution — the idea that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted in line with the changing context. This links to the debate between advocates of strict and loose constructionism. Examples of issues where this divide has been highlighted include gun control (DC vs Heller, 2008) and abortion (Roe vs Wade 1973 and its reversal in Dobbs vs Jackson 2022).

Graham Goodlad, Portsmouth High School