A recent ruling declaring the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure unconstitutional signaled that a similar outcome awaits the Federal Housing Finance Agency. But the FHFA will argue in a new case that it does not deserve the same fate.

Policymakers have eased some rules and the Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But as the landmark legislation approaches its 10th anniversary, the post-crisis regulatory regime has stayed largely intact.

The high court ruled June 29 that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau violated the separation of powers.

The agency sought to provide certainty that most actions from the past eight years remain in effect despite the ruling that the bureau's leadership structure is unconstitutional.

The notice of proposed rulemaking was mandated by the Dodd-Frank regulatory relief act passed in 2018.

Tom Pahl, a former longtime regulator at the Federal Trade Commission, has led key rulemaking efforts for the consumer bureau.

Legal experts say it is now more likely that the Supreme Court will strike down the single-director governance framework for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s regulator.

The agency has proposed letting firms seek specific guidance, which can be applied to other institutions. But consumer groups worry the plan circumvents formal rulemaking.

The Supreme Court threw out a key statutory provision concerning the agency’s leadership structure, but the presidential election and possible legislative reforms could bring about more changes to the embattled bureau.

In a split 5-4 decision, the justices gave presidents new power to remove the agency's head at will. The ruling could have far-reaching implications for other regulators with single directors.