The Ninth Circuit recently issued its viewpoint in CFPB v. Great Plains Lending, LLC, et al., by which three tribal-affiliated, for-profit financing organizations (вЂњTribal LendersвЂќ) challenged the authority associated with the CFPB to issue civil investigative needs (CIDs) against Native United states tribes.
In 2012, the CFPB issued CIDs from the Tribal Lenders regarding their marketing, advertising, origination, and assortment of small-dollar loan services and products. In reaction, the Tribal Lenders stated that the CFPB lacked jurisdiction to analyze them and, after their offer of cooperation had been refused by the Bureau, challenged the CIDs in a Ca court that is federal. The district court granted the CFPBвЂ™s petition to enforce the CIDs and also the Tribal Lenders appealed.
Summarizing precedent, the Ninth Circuit determined that Dodd-FrankвЂ”a вЂњlaw of general applicabilityвЂќвЂ”applies to tribes unless: 1) the legislation details on exclusive legal rights of tribal self-governance; 2) the use of what the law states to tribes would break treaties; or 3) Congress indicated its intent that what the law states must not connect with tribes. The Tribal Lenders would not argue that the CIDs violated a treaty and their financing included non-tribal clients. Properly, the panelвЂ™s choice scrutinized whether Congress meant the ActвЂ™s investigative authority to incorporate tribes.
Dodd-Frank provides that the Bureau may issue a CID whenever it offers explanation to trust that the вЂњpersonвЂќ might have information strongly related a breach. The Act describes вЂњpersonвЂќ as вЂњan person, partnership, business, firm, relationship (incorporated or unincorporated), trust, property, cooperative, company, or other entity.вЂќ In comparison, the Act defines вЂњStatesвЂќ to add, to some extent, вЂњany federally recognized Indian tribe as defined because of the Secretary regarding the Interior.вЂќ The Tribal Lenders argued that the definitions had been mutually exclusive. (more…)