The US Supreme Court Monday issued an order list announcing it will hear two additional cases this term. The two cases are Pulsifer v. United States and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited.

In the first case, petitioners ask the justices to consider the meaning of the First Step Act of 2018. This law reformed sentencing to require a district court to ignore the mandatory minimum sentence if a criminal defendant meets certain criteria, known as “safety valve relief.” That criteria includes not having more than four criminal history points based on prior convictions, not having a prior three-point offense and not having a prior two-point offense on the defendant’s criminal record.

The Pulsiver petitioners specifically ask the Supreme Court to decide whether the “and” in Section 3553(f)(1) of the First Step Act requires a defendant to not have met all three criteria in order to qualify or whether the defendant is automatically ineligible for the alternate sentencing guidelines if they do not meet one of the criteria. The Eighth Circuit held that the this section of the statute does not allow a defendant to qualify for the sentencing guidelines if they have only one of the offenses listed. There is currently a circuit split between the circuit courts as to whether Section 3553(f)(1) should be read together or individually. The United States’ brief argues the statute should be read as banning the safety valve relief for defendants who violate only one of the criteria.

In the second case, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) asks the Supreme Court to rule that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not violate the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution. The statute allows the CFPB to receive funding determined by the agency’s director on a yearly basis. The CFPB’s 2017 rule, known as the Payday Lending Rule, bars covered lenders from making specific loans to people whom they reasonably believe will default on the loan and does not allow these lenders to take payments from borrower’s bank accounts after two failed payments unless the lender provides new permission. Community Financial Services challenged the rule, claiming Congress’ statute which funds CFPB violates the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution. They argued that the statute gives the power of appropriating money to Congress alone, since it allows CFPB to determine its own funding without much congressional oversight.