The plaintiffs in State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas, et al. v. Lew have filed a "Motion To Intervene In Any En Banc Proceeding That May Be Granted" in the PHH case. The motion follows the D.C. federal district court's denial of the plaintiffs' attempt to consolidate their case with PHH on appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

In July 2016, the D.C. federal district court rejected the plaintiffs' attempt in State National Bank of Big Spring to invalidate the actions taken by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray while he was a recess appointee. The district court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' separation of powers constitutional challenge pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit in PHH. The D.C. Circuit subsequently ruled in PHH that the CFPB's single-director-removable-only-for-cause structure is unconstitutional. In their motion seeking consolidation filed last month, the plaintiffs argued that judicial economy would be served by having the district court enter partial summary judgment in their favor on their claim that the Dodd-Frank Act's for-cause removal provision is unconstitutional and then certify the partial summary judgment order for interlocutory appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

In their motion to intervene, the plaintiffs argue that if the D.C. Circuit grants the CFPB's petition for rehearing en banc but decides the case on RESPA grounds, their "constitutional claims will be left unresolved, and the district court will be left without binding guidance from this Court as to how the constitutional question should be answered." According to the plaintiffs, a decision on RESPA grounds would delay the resolution of their case, "prolonging the harm they suffer from being subject to unconstitutionally promulgated regulations and ensuring that they will wait even longer for an eventual, inevitable merits determination from this Court."

The plaintiffs argue that they meet the standard for intervention of right, which includes a requirement that no party to the action can adequately protect their interests. According to the plaintiffs, they cannot rely on PHH to defend the panel's constitutionality holding as vigorously as the plaintiffs would.