Constitutional Challenges to Dodd-Frank

Abstract

This article examines arguments against the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, specifically, arguments concerning the separation of powers, the Takings Clause, and the First Amendment. The article is divided into three sections in order to strategically discuss the three issues, the main arguments in favor of each one, and the consequences of the possible unconstitutionality. Arguments concerning the separation of powers contend that Dodd-Frank is problematic from the perspective of the nondelegation doctrine, the Appointments Clause, and Article III. Arguments concerning the Takings Clause are based on substantive challenges to constitutionality. The third argument against the constitutionality of Dodd-Frank examines a First Amendment challenge to section 1502 of the Act, which has been criticized on substantive constitutional grounds. The conclusion briefly examines remedies and discusses the future of Dodd-Frank.