CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; FORT WORTH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; LONGVIEW CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; AMERICAN BANKERS ASSOCIATION; CONSUMER BANKERS ASSOCIATION; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS, Plaintiffs – Appellants
v. CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU; ROHIT CHOPRA, in his official capacity as Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , Defendants – Appellees.
Plaintiffs, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Texas Association of Business, respectfully submit this notice regarding a recent order by the district court. On March 26, 2024, the day after Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and sought emergency relief in this Court, the district court entered an order setting a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) on Tuesday, April 2, 2024.
Plaintiffs appreciate that the district court has scheduled a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion. Plaintiffs look forward to appearing for oral argument before the district court to request an indicative ruling on that Motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1.
In the meantime, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court allow the parties to continue with briefing on Plaintiffs’ emergency motion before this Court. As described in Plaintiffs’ emergency motion in this Court, Plaintiffs appealed to this Court from the effective denial of their Motion, and they continue to suffer additional irreparable harm with each day that passes. See Clarke v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 74 F.4th 627, 635 (5th Cir. 2023) (“a court of appeals may review a district court’s order that, while not explicitly denying a preliminary injunction, nonetheless has the practical effect of doing so and might cause irreparable harm absent immediate appeal”). That irreparable harm arises because of Defendants’ constitutional and statutory violations, which are made more acute by Defendants’ refusal to comply with the Truth in Lending Act’s requirements that give issuers six months to implement changes to credit card disclosures; the CFPB provided 60 days. App.012-107; see 15 U.S.C. § 1604(d).
Although the district court has set a hearing, the court has not said whether or when the court plans to provide an indicative ruling on their Motion, see App.308, and the CFPB’s motion for discretionary transfer remains pending. Consequently, Plaintiffs respectfully ask that this Court maintain the current briefing schedule on their emergency motion and believe that an administrative stay pending this Court’s consideration would still be appropriate.
Download to read the full text.
Follow this and other cases ABA is involved in, using ABA's Litigation Tracker.
See All ABA Litigation