The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of the structure used to fund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the federal agency tasked with enforcing consumer finance laws. By a vote of 7-2, the justices reversed a decision by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, which had ruled that the agency’s funding violates the Constitution because it comes from the Federal Reserve rather than through the congressional appropriations process.

Today’s federal government has strayed far from the design of the Founders, often for the worse. But not every deviation from the original concept can or should be fixed by the courts. That’s the message of the Supreme Court’s 7–2 decision this morning in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America. The case provoked a spirited debate between Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito about the Court’s authority to save Congress from its own folly.

It's a sign that your legal theory is too extreme when Justice Clarence Thomas leads a lopsided majority in rejecting it. That just happened in a case that highlights not the greatness of the Supreme Court but, instead, the radicalism of the even-further-right 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Thomas-led court had to reverse.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be seen as a wild success. Over its 12 years of existence, it has been responsible for returning more than $17 billion to Americans separated from their money by financial sector shenanigans.

Instead of being able to celebrate that achievement, the agency is in a fight for its life — and if it loses, we’ll all be poorer for it.

A case due to come before the U.S. Supreme Court next week has the potential to expose every federal bank regulator to political inference while also jeopardizing Social Security and Medicare, the federal health insurance program, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday.

The Supreme Court begins a new term on Monday, and its first week includes some important repair work on the Constitution’s separation of powers. On Tuesday the Justices will hear a challenge to the unconstitutional design of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association).

Democrats in Congress constructed the CFPB to be insulated from accountability by the political branches. This fits the progressive vision of an administrative state run by supposed experts who will instruct Americans on proper behavior whether they like it or not.

Rep. Byron Donalds has reintroduced legislation to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an Obama-era creation that conservatives have long criticized as a government red-tape factory with no accountability to voters.

“Look no further than the CFPB for the epitome of the Washington Swamp: an unconstitutional, unaccountable and overreaching government agency with no Congressional oversight,” said Mr. Donalds, Florida Republican.

You might think that right now is not a good time to make it easier for predatory lenders to take advantage of people and trap them in impossible-to-escape debt cycles. And yet.

Before she was a senator or a presidential candidate, Elizabeth Warren’s first foray into politics began when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tapped Warren to serve on a congressional panel charged with overseeing a $700 billion bank bailout during the 2008 financial crisis. It was in that role that Warren, a Harvard law professor and personal bankruptcy expert, became a hero of progressives for her dogged accountability of Wall Street.

The Supreme Court hears a case Tuesday about whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's structure as an independent agency with a single director is unconstitutional. That may seem like a narrow and technical issue, but it raises the fundamental question before us in the 2020 election: can we make our government work for the people?