The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a largely skeptical hearing to lenders questioning the constitutionality of the Obama-era consumer protection agency.

Most of the justices suggested they were not ready to strike down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau simply because it is funded by fees from the Federal Reserve rather than an annual appropriation.

Citing early American history, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that from the nation’s inception, Congress created agencies such as the Custom Service and the Postal Service that were funded by fees and not an annual amount.

When Congress adopted the new consumer agency in 2010 to protect borrowers from deceptive lending, it decided to fund the agency through fees collected by the Federal Reserve.

Earlier this year, the conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency was unconstitutional because Congress failed to enact an appropriation.

But Prelogar argued that this has never been a constitutional rule, and most justices agreed.

Judge Elena Kagan said the 5th Circuit’s argument has been “resolutely rejected by history. You are flying into the light of 250 years of history,” she told lawyer Noel Francisco, who represented the lenders.

Several justices pointed out that Congress chose this funding formula for the agency and could revise it.

“Congress could change this tomorrow. It is not perpetual or permanent,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

During the two-hour argument, only Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. spoke. and Neil M. Gorsuch as if they would vote to close the agency.

The case to be heard on Tuesday involves both a high-level dispute over the constitution’s separation of powers and a practical and political division over the agency.

The brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) when she was a law professor, the agency was the centerpiece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank overhaul of financial regulations and the first new federal agency since the early 1970s that specifically targeted American consumers.

Its mission was to protect borrowers and consumers against misleading and unfair practices by banks and mortgage lenders. It has returned more than $17.5 billion to wronged customers.

But it has been steadily opposed by much of the credit industry and by many Republicans who believe the agency has too much unchecked power.

While Democrats tried to shield the agency from Washington politics, that shield now jeopardizes its future before the Supreme Court.

Under 2010 legislation, the agency’s director could not be removed by the president for political reasons, and the agency’s budget was off-limits to Congress.

and the

annual credit procedure. Instead, funding comes from the Federal Reserve, which i

one turn

earns fees from loans.

The agency used $641 million of that money last year.

Supreme Court conservatives have viewed the agency skeptically. Three years ago, in a 5-4 decision, the justices rejected the director’s independent status and ruled that the person could be removed by the president for any reason, including political differences.

The current dispute began as a challenge to a proposed regulation of payday lenders. In their ruling for the lenders, the three judges of the 5th Circuit, all appointed by President Trump, said it violated the Constitution to protect the agency from an annual battle over its appropriation.

Judge Cory Wilson said the agency’s continued isolation from congressional power, including its express exemption from congressional control of its funding, renders the agency unaccountable to Congress and ultimately to the people .

However, the 5th Circuit’s ruling did not immediately affect the agency’s funding or operations as the parties continue their legal battle.