Explained: Clarence Thomas’ split with conservatives to save 'Elizabeth Warren's baby'

Join Fox News for access to this content Plus special access to select articles and other premium content with your account - free of charge. Please enter a valid email address. By entering your email and pushing continue, you are agreeing to Fox News' Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided. Having trouble? Click here.

When the Supreme Court decided last week to keep the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) funded, some were surprised that Justice Clarence Thomas split from some of his conservative colleagues, writing the majority opinion to keep the CFPB intact.

In a 7-2 decision, the court held that Congress uniquely authorized the bureau to draw its funding directly from the Federal Reserve System, therefore allowing it to bypass the usual funding mechanisms laid out in the appropriations clause of the Constitution.

The financial watchdog agency bypasses typical congressional appropriations and simply requires the CFPB director to make requests of the Treasury Department for funds as needed. The banking industry parties challenging the CFPB say that is unconstitutional, citing the appropriations clause.

But the high court's majority disagreed. "In this case, we must decide the narrow question whether this funding mechanism complies with the Appropriations Clause. We hold that it does," the opinion states.

SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF CFPB, BRAINCHILD OF SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN

"For most federal agencies, Congress provides funding on an annual basis. This annual process forces them to regularly implore Congress to fund their operations for the next year. The Consumer Financial