WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court docket agreed on Monday to listen to a case that would hobble the Shopper Monetary Safety Bureau and advance a key venture of the conservative authorized motion: to restrict the facility of unbiased businesses.

A ruling in opposition to the bureau, created as a part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the monetary disaster, may forged doubt on each regulation and enforcement motion it took within the dozen years of its existence.

The central query within the case, Shopper Monetary Safety Bureau v. Neighborhood Monetary Companies Affiliation of America, No. 22-448, is whether or not the way in which Congress selected to fund the company violated the Appropriations Clause of the Structure, which says that “no cash shall be drawn from the Treasury, however in consequence of appropriations made by regulation.”

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, dominated in October that the bureau’s funding mechanism ran afoul of that clause.

“Wherever the road between a constitutionally and unconstitutionally funded company could also be, this unprecedented association crosses it,” Choose Cory T. Wilson wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Don R. Willett and Kurt D. Engelhardt within the ruling. President Donald J. Trump appointed all three judges on the panel.

The bureau is funded by the Federal Reserve System, in an quantity decided by the bureau as long as it doesn’t exceed 12 p.c of the system’s working bills. Within the 2022 fiscal 12 months, the company requested and obtained $641.5 million of the $734 million accessible. The 2010 regulation mentioned the bureau’s funding requests “shall not be topic to evaluation by” the Home and Senate Appropriations Committees.

The Fifth Circuit’s determination was at odds with ones from different courts. In 2018, for example, the District of Columbia Circuit mentioned there was nothing uncommon concerning the funding mechanism.

In urging the Supreme Court docket to listen to the Biden administration’s attraction, Solicitor Basic Elizabeth B. Prelogar mentioned the ruling “threatens to inflict immense authorized and sensible harms on the C.F.P.B., customers and the nation’s monetary sector.”

In 2020, the Supreme Court docket dominated {that a} totally different a part of the regulation creating the company was unconstitutional, saying that Congress couldn’t insulate the bureau’s director from presidential oversight given the scope of the job’s authority.

“The director has the only real accountability to manage 19 separate consumer-protection statutes that cowl all the things from bank cards and automotive funds to mortgages and scholar loans,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for almost all.

He talked about the bureau’s funding in passing, noting that its funds had exceeded half a billion {dollars} in recent times.

“Not like most different businesses,” the chief justice wrote, “the C.F.P.B. doesn’t depend on the annual appropriations course of for funding. As a substitute, the C.F.P.B. receives funding immediately from the Federal Reserve, which is itself funded outdoors the appropriations course of by way of financial institution assessments.”

Chief Justice Roberts made the identical level when the case was argued. “They don’t even need to go to Congress to get their cash,” he mentioned.

Within the administration’s petition in search of evaluation, Ms. Prelogar wrote that “the C.F.P.B.’s funding mechanism is completely in line with the textual content of the Appropriations Clause, with longstanding observe and with this court docket’s precedent.”

She added that barring congressional committees from reviewing the funding “merely allocates authority amongst totally different congressional our bodies” and that “the Appropriations Clause shouldn’t be involved with such issues of inside congressional housekeeping.”

The case was introduced by two commerce teams representing payday lenders. They challenged a regulation limiting the variety of instances lenders can attempt to withdraw funds from debtors’ financial institution accounts. The Fifth Circuit struck down the regulation, saying it was “wholly drawn by way of the company’s unconstitutional funding scheme.”