So concerning the CFPB lawsuit
After reading in great detail about it, it turns out that basically the legal case revolves around Corbray/English misinterpreting (willingly?) the language in the FVRA and the precedent in the courts around it already;
They claim that Dodd-Frank's ambiguous language about 'absence or unavailability' can cover vacancies, and thus the FVRA doesn't apply because it only applies when there is more specific succession statute
Now there's a noodly legal back and forth over the congressional intent involved when congress had a draft of Dodd-Frank that explicitly made the FVRA supersede, but pulled that language, but at the same time failed to put in language explicitly making Dodd-Frank supersede the FVRA and work in event of vacancies like other succession statutes, thus creating an ambiguous mire where both sides would have claims of intent and make the courts decide whether 'absence or unavailability' necessarily includes vacancy / resignation
but all of that is rendered irrelevant because the actual text of the FVRA never actually states that it doesn't
apply when a more specific succession clause exists, it simply states that its not the
exclusive means of appointment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3345https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3347So the answer to this legal struggle is that both Trump and Corbray had the authority to appoint department heads, the FVRA wasn't exclusive, and that Trump's pick overrides Corbrays. That was already ruled after Alberto Gonzalez resigned:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2015/06/01/op-olc-v031-p0208.pdfSo technically speaking corbray
was allowed to appoint english, but it was immediately superseded when Trump appointed Mulvaney
Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.