Which case do you think offers the best chance of successfully breaking through this supposed immunity from judicial review?
The one-sided selection, reading and interpretation of certain of HERA's statutes over others in relation to the conservatorship is the basis for the immunity from judicial review opinions. The FHFA and Treasury are not immune from judicial review.
These opinions have been made in the minds of federal judges who chose to ignore the full context of HERA and its statutes and failed to make an accurate comparison of the powers and duties of conservatorship with actual conditions and actions taken by the FHFA and Treasury over the past 8 years.
This is not to say that the judges should have decided in favor of the Plaintiffs in each of the previous cases. It is to say that fairness, integrity, two-sidedness, understanding, common sense and analytical accuracy are absent in these decisions. Instead, these specific judges have protected the US Government from suit by ignoring the fullness of the law and the contexts of government action.
Given these case records, the other cases depend, as these did, on the judicial personalities, qualities, attributes of judges. It is clear to many not sitting on the bench and not part of the FHFA and Treasury or their supporters, with or without legal expertise, that unfairness and injustice has been served with no effort to make a two-sided, nuanced approach to these cases or even to present the pretension of doing so. Perhaps, the remaining judges will not have a similar lockstep, uncritical, role authoritarian tendency to side with a poorly made decision of one judge.
Rather than consider the cases, examine the judges in the lower and higher courts.
