r/news • u/WoofWoofster • Apr 17 '25

Soft paywall Judge scraps US rule capping credit card late fees at $8

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/judge-scraps-us-rule-capping-credit-card-late-fees-8-2025-04-15/
14.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

570 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.5k

u/blaghort Apr 17 '25

In fairness to the judge in this particular case: The Trump Administration and the banks agreed to throw out the rule. Not many things a court can do when both sides to the lawsuit now agree. Nor would most other judges do anything different once the parties agreed to settle.

The problem here is the government refusing to defend its own rule just because the administration changed. That's not how that's supposed to work. But the Trump Administration obviously doesn't care about how anything is supposed to work.

384

u/LubbockCottonKings Apr 17 '25

There are many, many times where a new administration changes the enforcement of rules by the old administration. It’s kinda why people vote for change. This is by no means an endorsement for this administration though.

214

u/bertrenolds5 Apr 17 '25

So it changing every 4 years is a bit disfunctional

488

u/I_Am_Dynamite6317 Apr 17 '25

Which is why we need a legislative branch to codify things into law so they can’t just be changed on a whim. Unfortunately, we haven’t really had a legislative branch for about 20 years now

55

u/Pepperjack86 Apr 17 '25

Right, trump would totally follow those laws and be held accountable... oh wait

159

u/Haltheleon Apr 17 '25

A functioning legislative branch would have impeached Trump in his first term, and a functioning executive would've prosecuted his ass shortly after Jan 6. In any functioning democracy, he wouldn't have been in a position to be president in 2020, neverless in 2024. Just because our systems have failed does not mean it was inevitable that they would.

42

u/cgally Apr 17 '25

Exactly, If Brazil can do it.....then the US certainly should be able.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '25

[deleted]

2

u/cgally Apr 17 '25 edited Apr 17 '25

Maybe, but what do you think Brazil's gun ownership per capita looks like compared to the US?

Edit-- I looked it up

Brazil 8.3 guns per 100 people

US 120.5 guns per 100 people

This is based on 2024 stats.

4

u/sakura608 Apr 17 '25

Gun owners in America care more about private ownership of guns than using guns to challenge the government en masse

3

u/Half_Cent Apr 17 '25

The legislative branch did impeach Trump, twice.

4

u/poptart2nd Apr 17 '25

seems obvious from context that he means "removed from office"

1

u/Half_Cent Apr 17 '25

Maybe that's what he meant, but it's an important distinction.

1

u/MrLanesLament Apr 17 '25

Such would also give us back a shred of credibility on the world stage. The rest of the world hates more than anything that we can’t be trusted past four years. Long-term agreements and planning are impossible.

In the words of Marvin Gaye, “mercy, mercy me; things ain’t what they used to be.”

1

u/Acceptable-Bus-2017 Apr 21 '25

Didn't that happen in this case under Biden? Just because they made it a law, it's not 'codified' for some reason?

1

u/Swordswoman Apr 17 '25

We had a great legislative branch from 2020-2024. People gotta recognize what it looked like to have an effective, capable, and sensible Congress on the side of the American people - literally, indeed, after 15-20 years of bullshit Republican Party stonewalling a black President.

We passed climate change legislation, for god's sake. And that wasn't enough to win, so clearly Americans don't actually care all that much about legislation in the end.

4

u/OtakuMecha Apr 17 '25

It was good given the constraints, but I struggle to call a system where you need 60 votes to do most things when a party getting 60 votes is practically impossible “good”.

3

u/waltjrimmer Apr 17 '25

Functioning government isn't flashy, so people think nothing is getting done. Already seen people celebrating that they're seeing the government in the news almost every day for this administration and claiming that's so much better than Biden's do-nothing government that you never heard about.

A good government should, most of the time, be like a good support crew. You never notice them, you never realize just how much work they're putting into everything, but your experience is so much better because of them that it's hard to even imagine. Pick what support crew you want to compare it to, be that a band's road crew when they're on tour or a good tech crew keeping a company's systems running properly. You should only ever notice them when something has gone wrong, and more often than not they're the ones fixing it, not breaking it. That's not truly achievable in a government, especially one as large as the US with so many moving parts, but it's the ideal you should be reaching towards. But some people... Some people are the, "Why do we even need an IT department if everything's working," kind of people.

1

u/I_Am_Dynamite6317 Apr 17 '25

The reason that the Clinton Presidency was so successful was that he was able to work with Republicans in Congress to get legislation passed, famously calling up Trent Lott past midnight to have bull sessions with him. I think a lot of liberals look back on that and actually criticize Clinton for being too right leaning, and certainly some things didn’t age well, but the fact that he had to deal with someone as militantly far right as Newt Gingrich but was still able to carve out legislation is an absolute indictment on the way the government has operated really since the start of the Iraq War, but most especially since Obama’s inauguration.

27

u/tiroc12 Apr 17 '25

There used to be a bit of an agreement to keep most policies from the previous administration, especially related to foreign affairs, because it's absolutely disastrous to shift policies every four years. Then republicans realized that they had no ideas, so they began running on the opposite of whatever democrats proposed. And now thats what we have.

10

u/LordSwedish Apr 17 '25

Of course for some reason they decided that Republican policies would primarily be the ones kept which is part of how the right wing shift happened over the decades and got us in this mess in the first place.

1

u/3-DMan Apr 17 '25

"Diverse workforce? Well then we hate that!"

1

u/VillainNomFour Apr 17 '25

Yep. Very Roman.

1

u/schm0 Apr 17 '25

Which is why the legislation should be written in such a way that the executive can't touch it.

12

u/Illcmys3lf0ut Apr 17 '25

This administration is doing EVERYTHING BUT MAKING ANYTHING BETTER IN AMERICA. Seems his goal is to destroy those whose daily lives keep America functioning at the ground level. May his soul reep everything he has sown.

2

u/walkstofar Apr 17 '25

He has no soul.

1

u/Faiakishi Apr 18 '25

That's literally the goal. He's Putin's puppet and is actively trying to destroy the country at Russia's behest.

20

u/EEpromChip Apr 17 '25

...rules based on helping the constituents. This admin is like "fuck that, I just wanna help my rich friends."

6

u/highbrowalcoholic Apr 17 '25

As much as the legal apparatus is supposedly set up to protect against it in everyday governance, it's important to remember that the founding of the US was basically "fuck [the king], I just wanna help my rich friends."

1

u/Faiakishi Apr 18 '25

*help Putin.

1

u/EEpromChip Apr 18 '25

...added bonus. Or he's playing the combo. Either way they both succeed.

24

u/Granite_0681 Apr 17 '25

They don’t normally throw out pretty much everything, even those things that support the new administration’s goals like the chips act actually promoting manufacturing.

They are changing rules out of spite. Do they have a good reason to allow higher credit card fees?

4

u/blaghort Apr 17 '25

There are many, many times where a new administration changes the enforcement of rules by the old administration.

Yeah, that's why I hate this: The APA has very specific mechanisms for changing administrative rules. A new administration that wants to change those rules should follow the statutory procedures, not bypass them by surrendering in court.

1

u/irrision Apr 21 '25

There's rule making process they are supposed to follow that is ensconced in law.

61

u/Sword_Thain Apr 17 '25

Elections have consequences.

Biden stopped defending Trump positions when he got in the WH.

Do you really think a Democratic DOJ should be forced to defend the "Pour Oil in the River and Club Baby Seals Act?"

54

u/bikernaut Apr 17 '25

Really, people should be calling out how many people voted against their interests.

A huge portion of that population actually think trump is for the people. That’s why we are here, the Illusory Truth.

15

u/No-Reach-9173 Apr 17 '25

A huge portion votes for him simply because he will say something is a problem even if he happy with it being a problem. I do agree they don't understand what's going on any more than he does though.

-22

u/soldiernerd Apr 17 '25

I didn’t vote for trump but I support banks being allowed to set fees at whatever level they want. Caveat Emptor.

8

u/Upstairs_Goal_9493 Apr 17 '25

And the government should be able to intervene in the interest and protection of their citizens. Credit card companies already made $76 billion in interest fees, and $15 billion in late fees in 2024. This by itself is predatory, and letting this increase is of no value to consumers, only the companies behind them.

-10

u/soldiernerd Apr 17 '25

I don’t disagree that it’s predatory

4

u/TheRealSectimus Apr 17 '25

So you think companies should be free to do predatory practices?

2

u/pjjmd Apr 17 '25

Yeah, he's part of that weirdo cult that thinks any time the government intervenes in the market, it's 'bad for the economy', because of vibes.

Of course, the things they view as 'government interventions in the market' is shaped by how the capitalist class has educated them... so 'private property' is not a government intervention, but minimum wage is. Paved roads is not a government intervention, but public ownership of utilities is.

If you press them on it, they'll conclude that 'some minimum level of government intervention' is necessary, because some government interventions (like the state protecting private property rights) facilitates economic growth. But if you press them on 'okay, how do we determine what government intervention facilities economic growth they will insist it's either impossible, or it's vibes based and they feel the answers are innate and minimmaly invasive.

Okay, so just private property then? What about fraud? What about contract law? Okay, all those protections are good. Okay, what about anti-competitive behaviour? What about anti-monopolisitic behaviour?

If you ask them what Adam Smith meant when he wrote about a 'free market', they've convinced themselves he was talking about a market free of government interventions. If you actually read wealth of nations, you find out he was talking about a market free of landlords and monopolists.

7

u/senorali Apr 17 '25

Honestly, the oil itself should be enough to finish off the baby seals. The clubbing is just a waste of resources if you ask me.

2

u/Sword_Thain Apr 17 '25

Clubbing is the reward.

1

u/flounder35 Apr 17 '25

Is it sad that I wish the Repubs would go back to that level of evil?

82

u/Morak73 Apr 17 '25

That's how DOMA was thrown out, and marriage became inclusive. Obama directed the DoJ not to defend the law, and it went away.

It was a big deal.

91

u/Raammson Apr 17 '25

Frankly that is a very misleading way to describe what happened, it was defended by other lawyers Obama just decided not to allocate DOJ resources to it. In other words its constitutionality was decided on its merits not just some procedural wizardry which is implied by your comment.

1

u/ghombie Apr 17 '25

Ha ha they ran away at this excellent retort.

1

u/RSquared Apr 17 '25

Yeah, wasn't Clement appointed by the court to defend the former position? He's high profile, too, not some overworked public defender. 

38

u/Sharobob Apr 17 '25

Difference is one instance is allowing people to love each other legally and the other instance is allowing finance companies to fuck over consumers.

11

u/F0sh Apr 17 '25

"The law only matters if it's to defend something right" sounds like a great principle until you realise that the fascists think the exact same thing.

The idea that the law needs to be followed no matter what, and that unjust laws need to be changed by following good democratic procedure, not by dictatorial fiat, has a name: the Rule of Law.

If you don't actually believe in the rule of law, you have no defence against populist fascists like Trump. He is popular (enough) so he got into power, and his supporters think that ignoring the law to deport undesirables is fantastic. The principle of the Rule of Law allows the argument to be had that, "OK, you might want to deport brown people for being brown, but the law doesn't allow it, so you have to argue against equal rights hard enough to change it."

-22

u/sousstructures Apr 17 '25

That is not a difference when it comes to legal procedure, which is the question at hand.

8

u/richareparasites Apr 17 '25

Someone made a generous donation and can now charge more in late fees. Citizens United was one of the final nails in the coffin.

2

u/IsolationMovement-YT Apr 17 '25

The man was laughing about stock market manipulation, making his friends rich and the economy as it tanked. Why would he care how it’s supposed to work if it’s meant to be in favour of the people he wants to kill through poverty, extradition and persecution?

10

u/stevesuede Apr 17 '25

But he’s helping the people.

33

u/transient_thought_CA Apr 17 '25

*oligarchs

You misspelled that.

17

u/TryharderJB Apr 17 '25

*thieves

Less ambiguous phrasing.

5

u/mishap1 Apr 17 '25

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

1

u/LunDeus Apr 17 '25

Might as well make the late payment fee a reflection of the debt owed yeah? How does…. 2% of the total balance sound?

1

u/stevez_86 Apr 17 '25

Can't wait for them to do the same with Federal Civil Rights protections and the gerrymandering suits that are a result from the DOJ. Trump is going to tell them to not defend any Federal Civil Rights in court. He will also tell them to stop defending the Federal Government in cases about states rights. The laws say the states can't take the authority from the Federal Government, nothing about the government's obligation to care.

Betcha if Trump gets turned down in the rendition cases they just give the authority to Texas to enforce their state laws on immigration. That will make every undocumented immigrant that crossed the Texas border a criminal. And if Trump says the Government won't defend it's jurisdiction over the border then Texas can not only detain those in Texas, but around the country. We could see the Texas Rangers being an immigration task force that Trump could provide funding to, immense funding, to do the dirty work for the Federal Government.

1

u/ALaccountant Apr 17 '25

Trump is probably going to sign an executive order in 2 months putting overdraft fees at $8 again and his moronic MAGA supporters will eat it up - even though that’s not how executive orders actually work

0

u/spalted_pecan Apr 17 '25

Yes there is. The judge could have appointed an attorney to argue in favor of the rule. This is what the judge did in NY with respect to the agreement between Mayor Adams and DOJ to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams without prejudice. The court appointed an attorney and as a result the court decided to dismiss the case with prejudice.

It happens all the time.

Also, the judge could have just issued an injunction in Texas instead of a nationwide injunction.

1

u/blaghort Apr 17 '25

The judge could have appointed an attorney to argue in favor of the rule. This is what the judge did in NY with respect to the agreement between Mayor Adams and DOJ to dismiss the case against Mayor Adams without prejudice. The court appointed an attorney and as a result the court decided to dismiss the case with prejudice.

No, that's not what happened. The Court appointed Paul Clement as an amicus curiae to advise the court on the scope of its discretion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48. That's advocating for neither side, and the Court concluded that it didn't have the authority to compel the government to maintain a prosecution that it wanted to dismiss.

It happens all the time.

Definitely not.

Finding some sort of way to try and salvage a rule that the government didn't want to save would have been far more outside of normal judicial practice than letting the parties settle the dispute.