Seila Law has filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting an enlargement of the time allocated for oral argument (scheduled for March 3) and a division of the time to accommodate “the unusual circumstances for oral argument” that the case presents.  Seila Law states that it has consulted with the DOJ and Paul Clement, the court-appointed amicus curiae, and each consents to the motion and proposed structure for oral argument.

Seila Law observes that the case presents two questions: whether the CFPB’s structure is constitutional and whether, if there is a constitutional violation, the Dodd-Frank Act’s “for-cause” removal provision can be severed.  While both Seila Law and the DOJ agree that the CFPB’s structure is unconstitutional, they disagree as to the appropriate remedy.  The DOJ argues that severance is appropriate and the Supreme Court should vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings.  Seila Law argues that the appropriate remedy is for the Supreme Court to reverse the judgment below and either decline to reach the question of severability or hold that the “for-cause” removal provision is not severable.  Mr. Clement was appointed to address only the question of the Bureau’s constitutionality and not the remedy question.

Seila Law asserts that because it and the DOJ are adverse to each other on the remedy question, it would not be appropriate to allocate half of the oral argument time to Seila Law and the DOJ and the other half to Mr. Clement.  It seeks the allocation of a “modest amount of additional time” for itself and the DOJ to argue their respective positions on the remedy question.  Specifically, Seila Law asks the Supreme Court to increase the total time for oral argument from 60 to 70 minutes, with Seila Law and the DOJ to each have 20 minutes and Mr. Clement to have 30 minutes.