A lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of the Dodd-FrankAct moved forward this week with plaintiffs filing a legal responseto the government's motion to dismiss the case.

Plaintiffs, who include State National Bank of Big Spring,Texas, and the attorneys general of 11 states, responded Wednesday that the governmentmischaracterized and trivialized the plaintiffs' injuries thatoccurred as the result of various D0dd-Frank Act provisions.

State National Bank claim the substantial costs of D0dd-Frankcompliance, particularly Title X that created the ConsumerFinancial Protection Bureau, gives the case standing.

The state attorneys general claim Dodd-Frank's “OrderlyLiquidation Authority” injures them because it removes their legalrights to fair treatment in the event the government liquidates bigbanks and puts its own interest before creditors like state pensionfunds.

Additionally, plaintiffs argued in Wednesday's filing that DoddFrank's codification of so-called “too big to fail” is a realinjury to small banks, because it gives big banks an “enormouscompetitive advantage.”

Sam Kazman, general counsel of private plaintiffs CompetitiveEnterprise Institute, said when the same federal appeals courthearing the Dodd-Frank suit ruled Jan. 25 that several National Labor Relationship Boardrecess appointments were unconstitutional, it effectively resolvedone major issue in his case's challenge against theconstitutionality of CFPB Director Richard Cordray'sappointment.

“Rather than address the constitutional validity of this law,the federal government has, through its motion to dismiss, chosento attack the standing of 11 states, two nonprofit groups, and onesmall but courageous community bank in Texas, as well as theripeness of their claims,” Kazman said. “We look forward tothe court's resolution of these preliminary issues, and we arehopeful that we'll be able to proceed to litigate the merits of ourcase.”