Fishy prosecution, fishy retraction, fishy judge
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a political hack of the first water, especially designed to be independent of both Congress and the President. The President can't fire the people in charge, and they get their budget from the Fed, not Congress, so Congress can't rein them in either unless they pass a law to change or disband the agency. Only bureaucrats could think having no accountability is a good thing.
The CFPB sued a financial company for being racist after a 3 year investigation, spent four years in court, and settled. Along came the 2025 change in President and a shakeup at the CFPB. The CFPB said it was a bogus prosecution, and both the CFPB and the company went to court to retract the prosecution and pay back the fine. No dice, said the judge, that would "erode public confidence in the finality of judgments." Ritual over justice, every time.
Both the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Townstone Financial, a small Illinois-based lending company, were seeking to vacate their settlement over bogus discrimination charges against Townstone. The charges stem from Townstone's radio show: In a lawsuit filed by CFPB in 2020, the federal agency claimed Townstone made comments that would "discourage" black applicants from applying for loans. (For example, the hosts described Chicago's South Side as a "war zone." The CFPB called that a discriminatory comment because the South Side is a majority-black neighborhood.)
But because of this week's ruling, the settlement and fine will (for now) stand. The judge said he agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union's argument that vacating the settlement would "erode public confidence in the finality of judgments."
A linked article provides more context on the racism angle, but it probably cherry picks its examples too.
Like every Chicagoan, Barry Sturner is concerned about crime. He joined the former mayor, among many others, in describing the South Side as a "war zone" and using the term "hoodlum" in discussions of crime. It is also true that some high-crime areas in Chicago are majority African American. But juxtaposing these facts does not turn a discussion of crime into a series of disparaging comments about African American neighborhoods.
One commentator on the show did make a "recommendation regarding displays of the Confederate flag." But contrary to the CFPB's insinuation, the recommendation, said in jest, was "take down the Confederate flag" if you are trying to sell your home.
No idea what's going on here. The lawsuit was filed in 2020, the last year of the first Trump administration, meaning that 3 year investigation was also entirely during Trump. But he hadn't yet tried any major dismantling of the CFPB like he did this year (memory says they made a zero budget request for next year, but I don't follow all the ups and downs). Was this a matter of politics intruding into a "proper" case? That statement of the judge seems odd. Wouldn't it be better for the public to trust courts to make good decisions and correct bad decisions, rather than the public think courts never admit mistakes? Everybody makes mistakes. What counts is how we recover from them.
The sudden about-face reminds me of a Supreme Court case in which the President changed and the new government lawyer did a 180° after they'd heard oral arguments but before they'd made their ruling. So much for Rule of Law! And the Supreme Court went right along with it, took the new argument, and I don't remember now what the final decision was. But it's hard to think of a clearer example of how little the actual law meant. This sudden change looks the same, but the case seems like a clear violation of freedom of speech, an unaccountable irresponsible agency, and a politician sticking his nose in.