Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

You are always incredibly thorough. Much appreciated.

Old habits die hard. My pleasure.

1. So, in short, it seems you are saying this has very little short term implication

Timing, short or long is not mentioned jcromeenes. The implications of the advisory and the position it renders are unknown until one or both courts deliver a decision in the Collins and/or PHH case and the weight of these matters is actually measured in court opinions. So, there is no saying about short term implications.

2. and seems to be little more than a footnote

Treasury's advisory was mainly about the content of a footnote and how Treasury's wanted the court to treat the content of a footnote given the DOJ's opinion on CFPB's unconstitutional structure found in the DOJ's Amicus Brief.

The conclusion that this seems to be little more than a footnote is not warranted. That was not stated or implied. Treasury's advisory points to the footnote it made in Treasury's reply memo for a motion to dismiss. Treasury's advisory centers around that footnote. The content of the footnote indicates Treasury's former position on the Plaintiffs' constitutional claim (Count IV). That position, according to Treasury's footnote, was exactly the same as FHFA's position and arguments, which Treasury once joined, but now has rescinded.

3. HOWEVER it gives us strong footing on another angle to argue the NWS is not legal.

The "'angle' to argue the NWS is not legal" is based on the Plaintiffs allegation that there is constitutional defect in FHFA’s structure. This argument was first made by the Plaintiffs in Count IV of the Collins, et al. original complaint and defended in subsequent briefs against the Defendants' arguments and counter arguments.

The Plaintiffs may try to use Treasury's former position and Treasury's change to the DOJ's current position that CFPB's independent agency structure is unconstitutional when headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal as another "angle."

By pointing to Treasury's 3/24/17 advisory and DOJ's arguments and opinions that CFPB's structure is unconstitutional as found in the Amicus Brief to the CADC en banc rehearing, the Plaintiffs may argue that Treasury or the US position and argument is basically the same as theirs - an independent agency headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal is unconstitutional. Even so, it is important to notice and realize that the Plaintiffs, hypothetically, cannot argue that the DOJ argues that the FHFA is unconstitutional because FHFA is an independent agency headed by a single officer with a for-cause limitation on removal for such and such a reasons. The DOJ Amicus Brief opines about CFPB not FHFA. The present applicability of such arguments about the constitutionality of FHFA is speculative. Nothing has been decided at the moment, but imagination can conjure otherwise.

And would this speculative or hypothetical Plaintiffs' argument be more definitive and deciding for Judge Nancy F. Atlas compared to the current arguments and counter arguments made by the Plaintiffs for Count IV? Or would this hypothetical argument be merely supportive of arguments for Count IV? What would this hypothetical Plaintiffs' argument yield?

4. While rather simplified, does that more or less summarize it

Given what was presented above, the simplification does not more or less summarize what was given in the previous post.

Source:
Treasury Advisory in Collins, et al. Case in Texas
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0046.pdf

Memorandum of Defendants Federal Housing Finance Agency as Conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and FHFA Director Melvin L. Watt in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants’ Cross-motion for Summary Judgment on Constitutional Claim
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0036.pdf

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE in PHH Corporation v. CFPB
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3519662/3-17-17-US-Amicus-Brief-PHH.pdf

Reply Memorandum of the Department of the Treasury and Steven Mnuchin in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0038.pdf

Collins et al. Original Complaint
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Collins/16-cv-03113-0001.pdf