The Supreme Court justices hearing oral arguments in the CFPB constitutionality case appeared divided, which means any sweeping change to the consumer watchdog is unlikely, according to industry attorneys.

Senate Democrats during a hearing last week questioned CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger on the bureau’s plans to help out borrowers impacted by the coronavirus.

Low staff levels make it difficult for the CFPB to conduct follow-up monitoring of previous enforcement actions, according to the bureau’s Office of Inspector General.

The U.S. Supreme Court this week will hear oral arguments on whether the leadership structure of the CFPB is constitutional.

Though it believes the CFPB’s leadership structure is unconstitutional, the Department of Justice in a new reply brief urged the Supreme Court to preserve the bureau for its “critical work.”

The CFPB’s latest supervisory highlight report red flags mortgage servicing violations, where firms failed to provide loss-mitigation notices in time after natural disasters.

It is widely expected that if a Democrat wins the presidential election, the new administration will once again strengthen the CFPB.

During a congressional oversight hearing, House Financial Services Committee members grilled CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger on the bureau’s interpretation of the abusiveness standard, plans to reform the qualified-mortgage rule and the controversial RESPA bulletin.

The consumer watchdog hiked its budget for 2020, taking its spending to levels last seen in 2017.

Before a district court in New York, the CFPB argued that its funding source, which falls outside the appropriations process, is constitutional. The case stems from a dispute arising out of a civil investigative demand.