PHH Corporation v. CFPB ( 2017 )

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1177 September Term, 2016
CFPB-2014-CFPB-0002
Filed On: February 16, 2017
PHH Corporation, et al.,
Petitioners
v.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Respondent
BEFORE: Garland*, Chief Judge, and Henderson, Rogers, Tatel, Brown,
Griffith, Kavanaugh, Srinivasan, Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins,
Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of respondent’s petition for rehearing en banc, the briefs amici
curiae in support of the petition, the response of the United States to the petition, the
response of the petitioners to the petition, the supplemental response of petitioners, and the
vote in favor of the petition by a majority of judges eligible to participate, it is
ORDERED the petition be granted. Case No. 15-1177 will be reheard by the court
sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment filed October 11, 2016 be vacated. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard on
Wednesday, May 24, 2017, in Courtroom # 20, Sixth Floor. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties file 30
paper copies of each of their final briefs and the deferred appendix, in accordance with the
following schedule:
Brief for Petitioners March 10, 2017
Deferred Appendix March 10, 2017
(Public Filed 11/30/15
& Sealed Filed 12/1/15)
*Chief Judge Garland did not participate in this matter.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
____________
No. 15-1177 September Term, 2016
Brief(s) for Amici Curiae March 10, 2017
Brief for Respondent March 31, 2017
Brief(s) for Amici Curiae March 31, 2017
Reply Brief for Petitioners April 10, 2017
While not otherwise limited, the parties are directed to address in their briefs the
following issues:
1. Is the CFPB's structure as a single-Director independent agency consistent with
Article II of the Constitution and, if not, is the proper remedy to sever the for-cause provision
of the statute?
2. May the court appropriately avoid deciding that constitutional question given the
panel's ruling on the statutory issues in this case?
3. If the en banc court, which has today separately ordered en banc consideration of
Lucia v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2016), concludes in that case that the administrative
law judge who handled that case was an inferior officer rather than an employee, what is the
appropriate disposition of this case?
Parties are directed to hand deliver the paper copies of their submissions to the Clerk’s
office by the date due. To enhance the clarity of their briefs, the parties are urged to limit the
use of abbreviations, including acronyms. While acronyms may be used for entities and
statutes with widely recognized initials, briefs should not contain acronyms that are not widely
known. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 41 (2017); Notice
Regarding Use of Acronyms (D.C. Cir. Jan. 26, 2010).
Because the briefing schedule is keyed to the date of oral argument, the court will
grant requests for extension of time limits only for extraordinarily compelling reasons. The
briefs and appendix must contain the date the case is scheduled for oral argument at the top
of the cover. See D.C. Cir. Rule 28(a)(8).
Separate order(s) will issue scheduling the time of oral argument and allocating oral
argument time.
Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT:
Mark J. Langer, Clerk
BY: /s/
Michael C. McGrail
Deputy Clerk
Page 2