District Court Moves Quickly On Limited Remand In NTEU V. Vought; Judge Jackson Seeks Expedited Schedule

Only days after the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a limited remand in National Treasury Employees Union v. Vought, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson has moved promptly to begin proceedings concerning whether the preliminary injunction currently governing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) should be modified, suspended, or dissolved.

As previously reported, on June 19, 2026, the en banc D.C. Circuit denied the CFPB’s request to immediately modify the stay pending appeal but granted the Bureau’s alternative request for a limited remand. The court directed Judge Jackson to determine in the first instance whether intervening developments, principally the CFPB’s revised Workforce Restructuring Plan (“WRP”) and other developments identified by the government, warrant modification, suspension, or dissolution of the preliminary injunction currently in place.

In a scheduling order issued on June 22, Judge Jackson promptly began the process of considering the issues presented by the limited remand. The order directs the parties to identify all dates on which they are available for further proceedings.

Significantly, Judge Jackson instructed the parties that they “must identify ALL of the dates that work for their side,” emphasizing that they were “not being invited to agree to any one date since the state of the Court’s calendar is in constant flux.” The court also advised the parties that it is scheduled to begin a complex four-defendant first-degree murder trial on July 6 and that other matters may affect the court’s availability in August and early September.

While the June 22 order is procedural in nature and does not address the merits of the government’s request, it confirms several important points.

First, consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s observations when it denied the government’s request for a 45-day deadline, Judge Jackson appears poised to proceed expeditiously. Indeed, the en banc court expressly declined to impose a deadline because it expected the district court to continue handling the litigation promptly, as it has throughout the case.

Second, the order underscores that the district court, not the court of appeals, will initially decide whether changed circumstances justify revisiting the preliminary injunction. The principal issue likely to be before the court is whether the CFPB’s revised WRP sufficiently addresses the concerns that led Judge Jackson to issue the injunction in the first place.

That injunction currently bars the CFPB from implementing mass terminations or reductions in force that would prevent the Bureau from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions. It also generally prohibits the agency from terminating employees except for cause related to individual performance or misconduct and bars the destruction of CFPB records. The injunction was designed to preserve the status quo and prevent the agency from being effectively dismantled while the litigation proceeds.

The CFPB, in turn, contends that its revised WRP, which reportedly would reduce staffing from approximately 1,174 employees to approximately 556 employees, would permit the Bureau to continue performing its statutory duties while operating with a substantially smaller workforce. The government has argued that this revised plan, along with other intervening developments, warrants modification or dissolution of the injunction. A potentially significant factor that may influence the district court is that the One Big Beautiful Bill reduced the funds that the CFPB may request from the Federal Reserve Board from 12% of the Fed’s 2009 operating expenses, adjusted for inflation, to 6.5% of such expenses. According to a letter submitted by the CFPB to Congress regarding its funding at the end of last year, this reduced the amount it could request at the time from $785 million to $466.80 million. The letter also advises that to comply with the existing district court injunction, the Bureau would need $677.5 million, in Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1, 2025.

Judge Jackson’s forthcoming scheduling order should provide additional insight into the timing and scope of the proceedings on remand. Given the D.C. Circuit’s retention of jurisdiction over the appeal, however, whatever decision the district court reaches is almost certain to be followed by further proceedings before the en banc court.

Accordingly, while the June 22 order addresses only scheduling, it marks the beginning of what could be the next critical phase of the litigation over the future structure and staffing of the CFPB.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.