SoylentNews

And note that a key argument by the court was that there was no precedent for the CFPB's unconstitutional structure. If there had been other agencies with similar setups, this could have been very hard to overturn.

That is simply not true. As noted by https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/20/23414311/cfpb-unconstitutional-fifth-circuit-supreme-court-trump-community-financial [vox.com]:

This arrangement, where an agency has a continuous funding source regardless of what Congress decides to do in annual debates over federal spending, is particularly common among financial regulatory agencies. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency are all financed outside of the annual appropriations process. So is the CFPB.

Wilson’s opinion describes this funding structure as “double-insulated funding” because the CFPB’s money passes through two agencies that are not subject to annual appropriations, and he claims that this kind of funding structure is “unique.” He also deems this somewhat unusual funding structure to be problematic because none of the other agencies that are insulated from the annual appropriations process wield “enforcement or regulatory authority remotely comparable to the authority the [CFPB] may exercise throughout the economy.”

That last statement is doubtful, given that one of the other agencies that are insulated from annual appropriations is the Federal Reserve itself, the agency that controls the US money supply and that has such extraordinary power over the global economy that markets rise and fall based on merely on investors’ conjectures about what the Federal Reserve might do in the future.

In any event, the Constitution does not say that “double-insulated” agencies are unconstitutional. It also does not say that Congress must fund powerful agencies differently than it funds less powerful agencies. It only says that Congress must pass a law funding an agency before that agency may spend money to carry out its functions.

You haven't provided anything to really show that this is a bad law. It's simply not true that Congress doesn't control the agency's budget. All Congress has to do is pass a law that amends their own 2010 law. The Constitution does not mandate that agencies be subject to the annual appropriations process. In fact, this exists because of laws passed by Congress such as the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Congress created the annual appropriations process and therefore they also have the right to carve out exceptions where agencies are funded through means outside of this process.

The ruling is complete nonsense, and you've provided nothing of your own to indicate why this is actually a bad law.