ML-Implode News - The dispute over Trump's consumer appointment could hinge on one word

The critical language in the Vacancies Reform Act is this: It is the "exclusive means" for authorizing the appointment of an acting head unless another statute expressly designates a particular officer to serve in that acting capacity.
...
English's interpretation is that the Vacancies Reform Act is a default in case there is no other statute. But because the Dodd-Frank Act expressly designates how the CFPB vacancy is filled, then Dodd-Frank becomes the exclusive way to fill the post, and the Vacancies Reform Act ceases to have any legal authority.

The DOJ's interpretation is that because the Dodd-Frank Act designates how the CFPB vacancy is filled, then Dodd-Frank just becomes one of two ways to fill the vacancy. The Vacancies Reform Act continues to be an alternative legal way to fill the vacancy. Under that interpretation, the Vacancies Reform Act is no longer the exclusive way to fill vacancies -- it becomes an additional way to do so.''

Prediction: English's interpretation will be held to be correct. Why? First, the court will probably find that the Vacancies Reform Act is a remedial act; i.e., it only applies as a "fall-back" or gap-filler for laws that are deficient. The Dodd-Frank Act with regards to the CFPB isn't deficient, because it provides for vacancy succession. Second, the court will probably find that a definition of "exclusive" that allows for two conflicting authorities to post the same job is absurd (hence this very battle), therefore it is disfavored by a very fundamental legal canon (called the canon against absurdity, unsurprisingly).

Relevant:

The dispute over Trump's consumer appointment could hinge on one word