The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the federal law which created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) during the Obama administration unconstitutionally limited the reasons for which the president could fire its director -- but in doing so allowed the agency to continue operating, saying that the part of the law requiring certain reasons for the director's removal is "severable" from the rest.

The agency may therefore continue to operate, but its Director, in light of our decision, must be removable by the President at will," the court stated.

"Big banks & their allies will do anything to undermine the @CFPB – even ask the Supreme Court today to shut it down," she said.

In 2017, the Obama-appointed leader of CFPB, Richard Cordray, resigned and appointed the agency’s chief of staff Leandra English. But President Trump used his authority to designate Mick Mulvaney – who was also serving as the director of the Office of Management and Budget at the time -- as the acting director instead.

Seila Law LLC in 2017 refused to comply with a demand from the CFPB that it turn over information related to an allegation that it engaged in unlawful marketing practices, saying the agency was illegitimate because the limits on the removal of its director violated separation of powers.

The CFPB took Seila Law to court to force it to turn over the documents and information in question, which led to the case the court decided Monday.

"Let’s not lose sight of the bigger picture: after years of industry attacks and GOP opposition, a conservative Supreme Court recognized what we all knew: the @CFPB itself and the law that created it is constitutional.

"Today the Court took a stand against unaccountable government bureaucracies, and took a step toward restoring our Constitution’s separation of powers," McGahn said. "Per the Court, unelected bureaucrats exercising executive power must be removable at will by the President, thus restoring some accountability.".

After analyzing some of the debate behind the law, he continued: "These observations certainly confirm that Congress preferred an independent CFPB to a dependent one; but they shed little light on the critical question whether Congress would have preferred a dependent CFPB to no agency at all... it is far from evident that Congress would have preferred no CFPB to a CFPB led by a Director removable at will by the President."!

The popular Supreme Court publication SCOTUSblog acknowledged that part of the ruling, and its potential implications, in a Monday tweet.