NALCAB v CFPB - Case Summary

University / Undergraduate
Modified: 25th Feb 2024
Wordcount: 550 words


Law Expert

Disclaimer: This legal case summary was produced by one of our law experts as an informational resource for law students and professionals researching case law. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of

Cite This

Legal Case Summary

Summary: Legal dispute between NALCB and CFPB concerning illegal lending practices in marginalized communities.


The National Association for Latino Community Builders (NALCB) initiated a lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2016. The case orbits around the alleged discriminatory lending practices that were carried causing significant harm to marginalized communities (NALCB v. CFPB, 2016).

NALCB accused CFPB of failing to enforce fair lending laws to protect Latino consumers from discriminatory and predatory lending practices. The crux of the lawsuit revolves around allegations that the CFPB had been inadequately scrutinizing discriminatory lending practices within disadvantaged communities.


The core issues of this case revolve around the alleged failure of the CFPB to effectively enforce existing laws against discriminatory lending practices. NALCB alleged that CFPB's inadequate investigation and enforcement permitted lending institutions to continue exploitative lending practices targeting disadvantaged communities.

A secondary issue is whether the CFPB acted appropriately within its statutory authority. That is, whether their actions amounted to negligence and whether they caused harm to the plaintiffs as a result.


The case underscores the limitation of legally enforcing agency discretion in relation to their statutory duties. It emphasizes how proving actionable harm under the law in such cases can be a daunting task.

It not only adds to the growing body of jurisprudence dealing with agency discretion and its limits but also exhibits the difficulties facing marginalized communities in pursuing justice against exploitative lending practices.


The court ultimately ruled in favor of the CFPB. It found that the CFPB's oversight and enforcement actions, or alleged lack thereof, did not amount to actionable harm under the law. Particularly, the court noted that enforcement and investigation are discretionary functions of the agency and do not create specific legal duties enforceable under the law (NALCB v. CFPB, 2016).


  • NALCB v. CFPB, 1:16-CV-00953 (D.D.C. 2016).

Journalist Brief

In a challenge between the National Association for Latino Community Builders (NALCB) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the court sided with the CFPB. The case tackled predatory lending practices in disadvantaged communities, with NALCB accusing the CFPB of failing to act against such exploitations. The court, however, concluded that the CFPB did not create a specific, actionable harm. Essentially, the court ruled in favor of agency discretion in abiding by statutory duties.


What was the central issue in the NALCB v. CFPB case?

Answer: The main issue was the alleged failure of the CFPB to enforce laws against discriminatory lending practices to protect marginalized communities.

How did the court rule in NALCB v. CFPB?

Answer: The court ruled in favor of the CFPB, asserting the agency's discretion in enforcement and investigation duties.

What is the significance of the NALCB v. CFPB case?

Answer: The case highlights the challenges in legally enforcing agency discretion and the difficulty marginalized communities face in seeking justice against exploitative lending practices.

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Get Academic Help Today!

Encrypted with a 256-bit secure payment provider