Respondent Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau brought an enforcement action against
Petitioners RD Legal Funding Partners, LP, et al.,
while, as Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183,
2192, 2202 (2020) held, the CFPB's "structure"
"violate[d] the separation of powers." Before Seila Law was decided, the district court here also found the
CFPB's structure unconstitutional, and the CFPB appealed. While this case was on appeal and after
Seila Law was decided, the CFPB submitted a
declaration purporting to ratify both its bringing of the initial enforcement action and its appeal. Although ratification requires that the ratifying party be able to
do the act ratified when it was done and when the
ratification was made, the CFPB could not act while
unconstitutionally structured, and the purported
ratification here came years after the time for either bringing an action or filing an appeal had run. Despite
the CFPB's failure to meet those two fundamental
requirements, and the Second Circuit's obligation to determine its own jurisdiction, the appellate court presumed it could act, determining some (but not all)
issues on the merits, and remanding to the district court to consider the purely legal issues of ratification.
The questions presented are:

1. Whether ratification is an appropriate remedy
for the separation-of-powers violation identified in
Seila Law.

2. Whether, after Seila Law found the CFPB's
structure unconstitutional, the CFPB could ratify an
enforcement action and subsequent appeal long after
the time for doing either had run.

Whether ratification is an appropriate remedy for the violation identified in Seila Law