Rick HasenVerified account

Jonathan seems right in practical terms about how the courts will decide (and now, one has decided) - but his analysis notably doesn't really analyze textual (or leg history) claims.

Click on the links to the other analyses

Yes, I read them (well, actually just the White argument on his side). I see both arguments but find Lederman/Mendelson more persuasive.

Thats fine but I don't think you can say the other side is out of bounds in its arguments. Perfectly reasonable even if incorrrext

Hemel's article does not address the operative section of the VRA (U.S.C. § 3347(a)(1)(B)), which provides that it does not apply to a statute that itself provides for its own succession plan, which is what the CFPB does.

I don't think that's the best reading of 5 USC 3347(a)(1)(B). It says the FVRA isn't *exclusive* when the agency has its own succession plan; it doesn't say the FVRA is inapplicable

OLC under Bush, Obama & Trump has maintained that FVRA can be alternative where it's not exclusive. CA9 has adopted that position as well (albeit in the (a)(1)(A) rather than (a)(1)(B) context, but CA9's view is inconsistent w/yours & consistent w/mine)