Trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged regulations issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, arguing in part that the Bureau’s funding arrangement violated the Appropriations Clause. Congress authorized the Bureau to draw funds from the Federal Reserve System in amounts the Director deemed reasonably necessary to perform the Bureau’s duties, subject to a statutory cap. The Supreme Court of the United States held that this statutory authorization was an appropriation sufficient to satisfy the Constitution. An appropriation need only authorize spending from an identified public source for designated purposes; the Constitution does not require an annual appropriation or a particular funding formula. The Court reversed the judgment that had accepted the constitutional challenge and remanded for consideration of the parties’ remaining arguments. A dissent would have required a closer connection between the Bureau’s funding and an express congressional appropriation.