What a legally nonsensical, morally abhorrent decision.
I mean, I also disagree with the decision on principle, but I wouldn't go that far. Perhaps it's morally abhorrent in furthering the unitary executive dogma, but if that's the case, then it's the Vesting Clause itself which is morally abhorrent here, in which case the correct remedy would be a constitutional amendment.
The clear issue here was that the CFPB had rule-making authority and enforcement power and a director that couldn't be removed at-will, which was unprecedented & didn't fall in line with the traditional scope of regulatory authority as based on the Vesting Clause: that "[t]he executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States." With that in mind, it's reasonable to not want an individual making political decisions that potentially tie the hands of the executive when the executive didn't appoint said individual. At least with a multimember board, power is diffused whereas the CFPB has just been run by a Director as its own fiefdom. That's really all there was to it.
At the end of the day, this decision is still legally sound because it was just the Supreme Court determining that Congress doesn't have the constitutional authority to create an executive agency headed by a single individual whom the President can't dismiss at-will, which is a reasonable determination given that the structure of the CFPB itself is reasonably objectionable in vesting so much authority in such a single individual who isn't accountable to the political process.
That's a fair point. I do strongly disagree with this reading of the vesting clause. I'd argue that the nature of the executive power (which is about
executing Congress' will) entails that even if the executive power is "vested" in the President, Congress is entitled to determine and circumscribe what that power entails. The President already possesses a check on Congress in the form of the legislative veto.
Nevertheless, I admit that calling the decision nonsensical was a bridge too far. I guess I'm just bitter that the Louisiana abortion decision (which, while I agree with it substantively, was decided on laughable grounds) is getting all the spotlight and earning Roberts more liberal brownie points, while the Court's broader project to remove all barriers on corporate overlordship over society continues apace.
