Tuesday, we saw the battle for who is the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) come to a temporary halt. A U.S. district judge by the name of Timothy Kelly denied a request for a temporary restraining order to block the administration pick for acting director Mick Mulvaney. The request had been made by Leandra English, the choice for acting director by Richard Cordray, the former head of the CFPB. It is unclear exactly what her next move will be as this ruling cannot be challenged. English may seek a temporary or permanent injunction to block Mulvaney from taking over in the days to come. Politico reported on a statement her lawyer, Deepak Gupta, made, “This court is not the final stop.” He further added, “This judge does not have the final word on what happens in this controversy, and I think he understands that.” The White House was very pleased with the ruling as White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said in a statement, again reported by Politico, “The administration applauds the Court’s decision.” He went on to add, “It’s time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureau’s smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers.” The ruling does cause a question to come to mind. Did the judge make the right decision in the CFPB acting director lawsuit?
CBS Miami reporting on Judge Kelly’s decision:
Did Judge Kelly make the right decision in the CFPB acting director lawsuit? Was Judge Kelly’s decision correct in the eyes of the law? Or, did he ignore the law in making his ruling today?