U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 53— WALL STREET REFORM AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

12 U.S.C. § 5302

Severability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “at 1390, 1964, section 5302 provides in relevant part that “[i]f any provision of this Act . . . is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act .”
PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 839 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Indeed, the Dodd-Frank Act itself all but answers the question of presumed congressional intent through its express severability clause, which instructs: “If any provision” of the Act “is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of” the Act “shall not be affected thereby.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Nat'l Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust, 96 F.4th 599 (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “30 12 U.S.C. § 5302 . 31 Seila Law, 140 S. Ct.”
Seila Law LLC v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020). · cites it 3× “” 12 U. S. C. §5302 . Petitioner urges us to disregard this plain language for three reasons.”
Seila Law LLC v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020). · cites it 3× “” 12 U. S. C. §5302 . Petitioner urges us to disregard this plain language for three reasons.”
Seila Law LLC v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau (2020). · cites it 3× “” 12 U. S. C. §5302 . Petitioner urges us to disregard this plain language for three reasons.”
PHH Corp. v. CFPB (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “at 1390, 1964, section 5302 provides in relevant part that “[i]f any provision of this Act . . . is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act .”
PHH Corp. v. CFPB (D.C. Cir. 2016). “Indeed, the Dodd-Frank Act itself all but answers the question of presumed congressional intent through its express severability clause, which instructs: “If any provision” of the Act “is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of” the Act “shall not be affected thereby.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. OCWEN Fin. Corp., Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2019). “§ 5491 (c)(3), pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 5302 , not dismissal[.]” Jd. at p.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Access Funding, LLC (D. Maryland 2019). “at 8‒9 (quoting 12 U.S.C. § 5302 ). And, the Bureau notes that then Judge Brett Kavanaugh, while on the D.”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Navient Corp. (M.D. Penn. 2021). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5302 . Seila, 140 S.Ct. at 2209 .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.