A federal judge dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, finding the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue because they failed to show they suffered harm, the Legal Times reported on Friday. The plaintiffs argued the Dodd-Frank Act violated the separation of powers by “delegating effectively unlimited power” to the bureau and another entity created under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Financial Stability Oversight Council. U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle found that the plaintiffs failed to allege actual injuries and that claims of future injuries were too speculative to meet the legal standard for being able to sue. Texas-based State National Bank of Big Spring, think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute and advocacy group the 60 Plus Association sued the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the bureau last June. They were later joined by the attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia. The case was one of several filed against the government over the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Earlier lawsuits focused on President Barack Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray as the bureau’s director, but those cases were dismissed after the Senate confirmed his appointment last month.
