Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
This is from the decision on pg. 13-14, where the SCOTUS has basically said that so long as the FHFA does something that is in its best interests, even though it's antithetical to its primary duty to preserve and conserve, the anti-injunction clause prevents any court from issuing an injunction or ruling (with the exception of course, as always with Constitutional Violations by FHFA): "An FHFA conservatorship, however, differs from a typi-
cal conservatorship in a key respect. Instead of mandating
that the FHFA always act in the best interests of the regu-
lated entity, the Recovery Act authorizes the Agency to act
in what it determines is “in the best interests of the regu-
lated entity or the Agency.” §4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) (emphasis
added). Thus, when the FHFA acts as a conservator, it may
aim to rehabilitate the regulated entity in a way that, while
not in the best interests of the regulated entity, is beneficial to the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves. This
distinctive feature of an FHFA conservatorship is fatal to
the shareholders’ statutory claim."
Basically, the FHFA can do just about anything under the thinly guised veil of, "it helps the FHFA or has a public good aspect to it", and the shareholders are powerless because the SCOTUS has slammed the door shut on any type of judicial branch review!
Even a Constitutional Challenge (e.g., a Takings Claim) on some new devious and deceptive way to shake down the shareholders financial interests in the Billions will take years to work its way through the courts and it will make the shareholders look like they are asking for "a big ask".
Not to mention, what politician doesn't want billions for their latest pet project and would it not be too tempting for them to take the nonappropriated funds through the gses and by the time the SCOTUS reviews that Unconstitutional action the politician will either be out of office or already reelected?
Super disappointed that the SCOTUS did a major head fake at orals and then says, "Hey the FHFA CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS UNDER HERA!" The US Congress didn't expect FHFA and the UST to Nationalize the gses under HERA! A CONSERVATOR IS SUPPOSE TO CONSERVE AND PRESERVE THE ENTITIES, THE 5TH CIRCUIT EN BANC RULING (and Judge Brown) EXPLAINED EXACTLY WHY CONGRESS DOESN'T HIDE ELEPHANTS IN MOUSE HOLES OR HANG THE ENGINE ON THE TAILPIPE with the incidental powers granted in HERA! Apparently the SCOTUS didn't read or understand their reasoning!
WHAT private corporation is possibly going to take a dime of federal government help during the next inevitable financial crisis, much less risk their private capital when the government treats its shareholders so horribly?
Just a moral and ethical extreme shortage with all 3 branches of government and I don't blame you one bit for saying goodbye to this pitiful 13 year disaster of a story.
Good luck to you!
Haven't read the Cedar Nursery Case yet. Given the SCOTUS ruling that the FHFA can pretty much do whatever it wants, at least the Takings Clause would answer the question Why couldn't the FHFA sell all their assets to itself for $1? But they will have to wait for the UST to get paid per the onerous Liquidation Preference in the 4th Amendment.
Hard to believe 12.75 years into a temporary conservatorship and the SCOTUS says Nationalization of two private corporations is allowed under HERAS Incidental Powers provision. They are clearly allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Since HERA was a copy and paste job of FIRREA, did the RTC sell all the assets or profits of its wards to itself for nothing?
Anyone know what is going on in the Takings Case in the Court of Federal Claims? Yesterday the SCOTUS threw a bone to the Pacific Legal Foundation case, here's the WSJ today:
"The Supreme Court's conservative majority so far this term hasn't broken new Constitutional ground with its narrow rulings. That changed Wednesday with the Court's 6-3 Cedar Point Nursery decision, which significantly bolsters protections of private property rights.
Two growers in California challenged a 1975 regulation by the state's Agricultural Labor Relations Board that requires farmers to allow union organizers onto their property three hours a day for 120 days each year. They argued that the regulation was equivalent to a time-limited government easement and thus constituted what's known as a "per se" physical taking of property.
The Constitution's takings clause provides that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." When the government physically acquires private property for public use via eminent domain -- say, to build a pipeline or road -- the government is obligated to provide the owner with just compensation.
Here, the state argued it wasn't physically taking the farmers' property. Instead it was merely regulating its use -- no different from requiring businesses to let health and safety inspectors onto property. So long as it isn't permanently occupying or confiscating property, the state claimed it doesn't have to compensate the owners.
The Court's Penn Central (1978) precedent allows governments to regulate property use for the "common good" without compensating owners as long as the economic impact isn't severe. Governments have used Penn Central to justify all sorts of regulations that deprive owners of the beneficial use of their property, and courts have usually given them deference.
But the majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts significantly narrows Penn Central. "The right to exclude is 'a fundamental element of the property right,'" he explains. "Government action that physically appropriates property is no less a physical taking because it arises from a regulation."
He cites the Court's Horne decision (2015) in which the Court ruled a government requirement compelling raisin growers to set aside a percentage of their crop for the government constituted a physical taking. "The physical appropriation by the government of the raisins in that case was a per se taking, even if a regulatory limit with the same economic impact would not have been," he wrote.
The essential question isn't "whether the government action at issue comes garbed as a regulation (or statute, or ordinance, or miscellaneous decree)," the Chief states. "It is whether the government has physically taken property for itself or someone else -- by whatever means -- or has instead restricted a property owner's ability to use his own property."
In this case, the state effectively seized farmers' property and handed it to union organizers. The three liberal Justices disagree. In their dissent, they argue that an "access regulation" like California's rule isn't a physical taking since the government isn't literally expropriating their land. But the Founders conceived "takings" more broadly, as the Chief notes.
Under the liberals' interpretation, governments could require property owners to give the public or special interest groups access to their land to promote broadly defined social goods. Owners of beach front property would have to let the public trample through their land. Workplaces might have to let political organizers talk to employees.
Governments have increasingly been conscripting private citizens into carrying out their policy agenda. The Court's conservative majority has repudiated one front of this assault and dealt a major victory for property rights."
Sandra Thompson – Deputy Director
Division of Housing Mission and Goals (DHMG)
As Deputy Director of DHMG, Thompson oversees FHFA’s housing and
regulatory policy, financial analysis research and all mission activities
for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. She
has held this position since March, 2013.
Prior to joining FHFA, Thompson worked at the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), for more than 23 years in a variety of
leadership positions, most recently as Director, Division of Risk
Management Supervision.
During her time at FDIC, Thompson led the agency’s examination and enforcement program for risk
management and consumer protection at the height of the financial crisis. She also led the FDIC’s
outreach initiatives in response to a crisis of consumer confidence in the banking system. Her
experiences range from supervision to consumer protection, risk management and consumer
outreach activities. Thompson is a graduate of Howard University in Washington, D.C.
I think BO is on record as saying he couldn't fire and replace Lockhart even if he wanted too.
My read of the decision is that it is up to the trial court to decide if the Acting Director v Confirmed Director is relevant so far as a remedy is concerned. Today the SCOTUS basically said that a Government Conservatorship may do WHATEVER it wants so long as it MAY BENEFIT THE FHFA OR TAXPAYER. Good luck during the next financial calamity getting private corporations to accept government money to save the economy, prevent a continued economic contraction, and saving millions of jobs in the process.
Justice Gorsuch on the remedy granted to the Collins Plaintiffs:
"Instead of applying our traditional remedy for constitu-
tional violations like these, the Court supplies a novel and
feeble substitute. The Court says that, on remand in this
suit, lower courts should inquire whether the President
would have removed or overruled the unconstitutionally in-
sulated official had he known he had the authority to do so.
Ante, at 35. So, if lower courts find that the President would
have removed or overruled the Director, then the for-cause
removal provision “clearly cause[d] harm” and the Direc-
tor’s actions may be set aside. Ibid."
As ROLG pointed out today in his initial quick take, the 5th Circuit is not a big fan of what the government did and may be inclined to rule that the BO thought he couldn't fire DeMarco and therefore the SOP violation did cause compensatory harm to the Plaintiffs.
There is this from Justice Alito: "That does not necessarily mean, however, that the share-
holders have no entitlement to retrospective relief. Alt-
hough an unconstitutional provision is never really part of
the body of governing law (because the Constitution auto-
matically displaces any conflicting statutory provision from
the moment of the provision’s enactment), it is still possible
for an unconstitutional provision to inflict compensable
harm. And the possibility that the unconstitutional re-
striction on the President’s power to remove a Director of
the FHFA could have such an effect cannot be ruled out.
Suppose, for example, that the President had attempted to
remove a Director but was prevented from doing so by a
lower court decision holding that he did not have “cause” for
removal. Or suppose that the President had made a public
statement expressing displeasure with actions taken by a
Director and had asserted that he would remove the Direc-
tor if the statute did not stand in the way. In those situa-
tions, the statutory provision would clearly cause harm."
"As Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he was reportedly asked what kind of government the founders would propose. He replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” In this book, Justice Neil Gorsuch discusses his personal reflections that focus on the remarkable gift the framers left us in the Constitution. By drawing on his 30-year career as a lawyer, teacher, judge, and justice, he explores the essential aspects of our Constitution and the importance of civic education, civil discourse, and mutual respect in maintaining a healthy republic."
https://www.archives.gov/calendar/event/neil-gorsuch-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it
Thanks Brooge, the remedy in BOTH Seila Law and yesterdays case was simply to remand and give the Acting Directors the opportunity to ratify the subpoena and judges decision, respectively. As ROLG pointed out earlier today, the reason David Thompson petitioned the SCOTUS was to get RETROSPECTIVE RELIEF which could be a win if MC doesn't ratify the nws.
But how does a federal agency director ratify an ultra vires act such as the nws? I don't think he can and under the APA Claim, Collins could be remanded back to the 5th after the SCOTUS finds that the ultra vires act or nws is void.
We will know in a little while...
No question that the government has unclean hands in this unprecedented 12.75 year temporary conservatorship and I think the SCOTUS will not just turn and look the other way...
Many of us have come along way since the government initially said that the conservatorship would be temporary and since then has morphed into the largest takeover of two private corporations in US history, all the while seeing zero relief from the courts as well as the governments refusal and major resistance to admit to and take responsibility for their errant ways.
If there ever was a catalyst to turn this misjustice around this may be it, we will know shortly...
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/06/22/sources-us-expected-to-extend-residential-eviction-ban-by-one-month.html
"The landlords said property owners "have been losing over $13 billion every month under the moratorium." One group estimated that 40 million Americans were behind on rent in January, with $70 billion of missed payments by the end of 2020."
"But this maligned part of the mortgage industry is starting to make a comeback, in part due to new government-imposed limits on the number of vacation or second-home mortgages that can be sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Issuance of bonds backed by private residential mortgages reached around $84 billion this year, close to 72 percent of 2020’s full-year total, according to the Journal.
Part of the resurgence in private-label mortgages is due to a new cap from the government on how many vacation and second home mortgages can be purchased by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
[WSJ] — Keith Larsen"
https://therealdeal.com/2021/06/22/jpmorgan-invests-in-private-label-mortgage-platform/amp/
Alberto G. Musalem to Join Freddie Mac Board of Directors
June 22, 2021
MCLEAN, Va., June 22, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Freddie Mac (OTCQB: FMCC) today announced that Alberto G. Musalem has been elected to
its Board of Directors effective June 17, 2021. Currently, Musalem is chief executive officer, co-chief investment officer, and a founder of Evince Asset
Management LP, a company developing portfolio technologies for investors and managing a quantitative global fund.
“Mr. Musalem brings significant finance, capital markets, economics, and public policy expertise to our Board,” said Sara Mathew, non-executive chair
of Freddie Mac’s Board of Directors. “We welcome him as a highly qualified new member whose decades of experience position him to play an
important role on our Risk committee and our Compensation & Human Capital committee.”
Before founding Evince Asset Management, Musalem served as executive vice president at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2014 to
2016, as head of the Integrated Policy Analysis Group and of the Emerging Markets and International Affairs Group. Prior to that, he held various
positions at Tudor Investment Corporation from 2000 to 2013, including managing director, partner and global head of research. He previously served
as an economist at the International Monetary Fund from 1996 to 2000.
Musalem holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Pennsylvania.
Freddie Mac makes home possible for millions of families and individuals by providing mortgage capital to lenders. Since our creation by Congress in
1970, we’ve made housing more accessible and affordable for homebuyers and renters in communities nationwide. We are building a better housing
finance system for homebuyers, renters, lenders and taxpayers.
Learn more at FreddieMac.com, Twitter @FreddieMac and Freddie Mac’s blog
FreddieMac.com/blog.
MEDIA CONTACT: Christopher Spina
(703) 388-7031
christopher_spina@freddiemac.com
Maybe that's why a Friday release or the Friday prior to a 3 day weekend may or may not be in order...
And it would finally provide the political cover of having an elected official eliminate the nws.
Seems to me that if the court requires the current Senate confirmed FHFA Director to ratify the nws, he will not because the nws is antithetical to what a conservator is statutorily required to do. He may have already directed someone on his legal team to draft the required refusal to ratify the nws to be released immediately after the SCOTUS opinion.
If MC does ratify the nws (seems extraordinarily unlikely) then the 5th Circuit EnBanc Panel ruling has already opined that the nws is ultra vires.
Either way, it seems like the days of the nws (and ultimately the 12.75 year temporary conservatorship) are numbered.
I think the difference between Collins and todays case is that the patent judges decision was lawful (unlike the nws which was enacted by the conservator to wind down the entities, a power of a receiver in Liquidation), BUT THE INABILITY OF THE ACTING DIRECTOR TO REVIEW THEIR DECISION WAS NOT! Hence the remand to see if the Acting Director ratifies the patent judges decision (just like Seila Law). This is from todays majority opinion: "In sum, we hold that 35 U. S. C. §6(c) is unenforceable as
applied to the Director insofar as it prevents the Director
from reviewing the decisions of the PTAB on his own. The
Director may engage in such review and reach his own de-
cision. When reviewing such a decision by the Director, a
court must decide the case “conformably to the constitution,
disregarding the law” placing restrictions on his review au-
thority in violation of Article II. Marbury v. Madison, 1
Cranch 137, 178 (1803). We add that this suit concerns only
the Director’s ability to supervise APJs in adjudicating pe-
titions for inter partes review. We do not address the Di-
rector’s supervision over other types of adjudications con-
ducted by the PTAB, such as the examination process for
which the Director has claimed unilateral authority to issue
a patent. See Reply Brief for Arthrex, Inc. 6.
We also conclude that the appropriate remedy is a re-
mand to the Acting Director for him to decide whether to
rehear the petition filed by Smith & Nephew. Although the
APJs’ appointment by the Secretary allowed them to law-
fully adjudicate the petition in the first instance, see Frey-
tag, 501 U. S., at 881–882, they lacked the power under the
Constitution to finally resolve the matter within the Exec-
utive Branch. Under these circumstances, a limited re-
mand to the Director provides an adequate opportunity for review by a principal officer. Because the source of the con-
stitutional violation is the restraint on the review authority
of the Director, rather than the appointment of APJs by the
Secretary, Arthrex is not entitled to a hearing before a new
panel of APJs. Cf. Lucia, 585 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at
12–13).
* * *
Today, we reaffirm and apply the rule from Edmond that
the exercise of executive power by inferior officers must at
some level be subject to the direction and supervision of an
officer nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate. The Constitution therefore forbids the enforcement
of statutory restrictions on the Director that insulate the
decisions of APJs from his direction and supervision. To be
clear, the Director need not review every decision of the
PTAB. What matters is that the Director have the discre-
tion to review decisions rendered by APJs. In this way, the
President remains responsible for the exercise of executive
power—and through him, the exercise of executive power
remains accountable to the people.
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit is vacated, and the cases are remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered."
Majority opinion means at least 5 of the 9 Justices sign on to the opinion and as the highest court in the land, becomes precedence (i.e., it must be followed by all the courts, both state and federal) and can last for 100's of years. Your Miranda Rights where outlined in the Arizona v Miranda case from the 1960's decided by the SCOTUS, "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you...".
In Collins, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch MAY be trying to convince at least 3 of their colleagues that's it's time to overrule Humphreys Executor, a FDR era case, OR MAYBE NOT. Who knows, that's why they need time to debate these issues amongst themselves.
Collins is a administrative agency overreach case and a separation of powers case. MAYBE THEY ARE DECIDING TO GET OUT THE BULLDOZER ON HERA
"In a fractured ruling on Monday, five justices held that the patent judges’ “unreviewable authority” in patent proceedings is incompatible with their appointment by the commerce secretary. Only properly appointed principal officers can wield that level of authority, Roberts wrote. He was joined in that holding by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett."
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/justices-scale-back-unreviewable-authority-of-administrative-patent-judges/
I believe during their weekly conferences they share their thoughts about the posture of each case, take an informal vote, and I think the Chief Justice decides who will ultimately write the majority opinion. They also are getting an idea about how receptive or not their colleagues are on the 4 issues touched on in the case. Amy Howe's piece the other day pointed out that typically they share the work load for writing the majority opinions and for December it looks like Breyer, Gorsuch and Alito are due.
Gorsuch and Thomas are not fond of the government overreaching its powers, especially through the administrative state and in Collins, that's EXACTLY what happened, especially as to the steamrolling by the FHFA Director with respect to our personal property rights.
So Gorsuch or Alito writing the Majority opinion (which is the one that matters most) seems more favorable for the shareholders, but Breyer I think, pleasantly surprised us all with his constant mentioning of Nationalizing the gses.
They can do pretty much whatever they want as far who gets to write the final case from 2020.
Justice Gorsuch just doesn't put up with accountable to NOONE in Government actions that confiscate the Citizens private property rights!
Nice find Camaro! Gorsuch and the majority aren't putting up with unaccountable, insulated government officials shenanigans when it comes to property rights!
Thanks for pointing out this case, I am just starting to read it, the remedy for the unconstitionally insulated ptab was: "The appropriate remedy is a remand to the Acting Director to decide
whether to rehear the petition filed by Smith & Nephew." We may get that same remedy under the Severability Analysis of Collins, and we know what MC thinks about the nws!
Question though: If the SCOTUS concludes 1st that the nws was ultra vires and void pursuant to the APA, do they even need to decide what the appropriate remedy is for acts by an unconstitionally insulated FHFA Director? Are there other cases working their way up the Federal Courts ladder that ask for a different remedy other than the nws?
It seems that the dissent believes that the ALJ are inferior officers and therefore under the Appointments Clause are not needed to be directly accountable to the POTUS (do you remember Justice Kagan telling David Thompson that, "No that's the Appointments Clause"?)
"JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join as to Parts I and II,
dissenting.
For the very first time, this Court holds that Congress
violated the Constitution by vesting the appointment of a
federal officer in the head of a department. Just who are
these “principal” officers that Congress unsuccessfully
sought to smuggle into the Executive Branch without Sen-
ate confirmation? About 250 administrative patent judges
who sit at the bottom of an organizational chart, nestled
under at least two levels of authority. Neither our prece-
dent nor the original understanding of the Appointments
Clause requires Senate confirmation of officers inferior to
not one, but two officers below the President."
From todays WP: "In the ACA case, California v. Texas, the dissenters not only would have found that the plaintiffs in the case had standing to sue, notwithstanding the flimsiness of the supposed injury to them, they would have gone even further, ruling that the individual mandate to obtain coverage was unconstitutional and that the entire law had to fall as a result.
...Barrett balked at going along, nor did she sign on to a grudging concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas, who said he would have agreed with the dissenters on the issues of constitutionality and severability if the plaintiffs had shown they had standing to challenge the law."
One positive for ruling sooner rather than later is that the SCOTUS seems to be moving with "all deliberate speed" to rule on the older cases before ruling on the newer cases, unless the newer cases are 9-0, 8-1, 7-2 and relatively short opinions. That said, I think the EnBanc Panel ruling came in at 124 pages and with at least 4 major issues involved in Collins coupled with checking to see how the potential ruling impacts the pending litigation making its way up the federal circuits it could be in the final 1/3 of the 15 remaining cases. Lastly, the SCOTUS may or may not care about releasing a potentially epic decision for shareholders on a Friday on a slow trading day, say before a 3 day weekend.
I am looking forward to read what the SCOTUS has to say about the 12.75 year "temporary conservatorship" and their impact on the the future of this governmental overreach.
One thing FOR SURE IS THAT SCHWARBER HIT 3 HR'S TODAY AT NATS PARK:
https://www.mlb.com/nationals/video/schwarber-mashes-three-homers?t=key-moments
I think the last time I saw a game at Nats Park was pre Covid!
The Nats will be back in town at the end of June and I will be taking my son down there probably then, I am thinking when they play the LA DODGERS of going down there and if you want to go I can buy you a beverage of your choice for all your contributions to the board!
Just let me know and we can probably get one of the board members to send me a private message with an annomyous email address and I will send them my contact info and they can forward it to you.
Amy Howe suggested in one of her latest articles that the 9 Justices MAYBE had some disagreement as to the recently released ACA case, because if they agreed 7-2 early on to decide that the Plaintiffs had no standing, then they may have released it awhile back. WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY DELIBERATE AMONGST THEMSELVES!
Collins has several issues floating around and when was the last time 7, 8, or 9 people totally agreed on 4 separate issues?
This reading of the tea leaves may or may not end within less than 16 hours. We should find out shortly whether or not the SCOTUS stops this governmental overreach dead in its tracks, slightly raps the knuckles of Uncle Suggy, or outright endorses the governmental overreach and its abusive and coercive conduct.
That's right, the SCOTUS, doesn't want to be seen by the 330 million Americans as simply basing their opinions on political affiliation BUT RATHER ON THE RULE OF LAW AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
Breyer posited to Hashim, "Now, one thing Conservators and Receivers DON'T DO IS GIVE AWAY ALL THEIR WARDS PROFITS TO THE UST!" Sotomayor posited to Hashim, "Is it okay for the fhfa to sell the companies to itself for $1?"
I think Roberts (since the hanging chad case and subsequent sharp divide in the 330 million Americans view of the appropriate place for government in their lives) has been promoting a theme amongst his colleagues for narrow rulings on issues that are 9-0,8-1,7-2 instead of broad sweeping changes. On the other hand, sometimes the issues and rule of law in front of them calls for sweeping changes that can be 6-3,5-4.
It wouldn't surprise me that if Breyer agrees that the nws was an ultra vires act and is void via the APA, that Breyer could write the majority opinion. On the other hand, I think Gorsuch writing the majority opinion would be most beneficial to the "evil banksters/evil hedge fund guys" like you and me. HeeHee.
We should know shortly....
"Gaming the court’s December calendar to determine who might be writing in Collins isn’t easy. The justices issued not one but two unsigned opinions – in the census case Trump v. New York and a brief decision in Republic of Hungary v. Simon sending the case back for further review in the wake of its decision on the same day in Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp. They also dismissed one December case, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, as improvidently granted. Breyer, Alito and Gorsuch have not yet written a signed opinion for December; we also know that Breyer, who dissented in the census case, would not have been the author of that unsigned ruling."
"Looking at the term as a whole, Thomas is almost certainly finished with his opinions for the term: He has written a total of seven, with at least one in every month but February, which had only six arguments. Breyer, Sotomayor and Kavanaugh are all tied for second place with five opinions each. Other justices are likely busier: Roberts, Alito and Barrett (who did not join the court until after its October sitting) have each released only three opinions so far."
Chronologically speaking, from oral arguments date.
It is a Friday before the 4th of July 3 day weekend. It is traditionally a very slow trading day and would give the markets plenty of time to digest it. But, they have at least tried to make an attempt to do the oldest cases first and guess whose next in line. GLTA!
I can't recall that ever happening, but who in da gubmint could stop them? I'm pretty sure that they want to finish up their last 15 cases, on the other hand 7 to 8 cases per week over 2 weeks seems like a lot! But ours is next in line and will likely be decided within the next 2 weeks, maybe in less than 48 hours!
"The court is scheduled to issue more opinions on Monday, Wednesday and Friday next week and finish its term the following week. In addition to the Voting Rights Act, the court will rule on school speech, union rights, compensation for college student-athletes, a securities-fraud case against Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the constitutionality of a patent review board and a high-stakes lawsuit by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders."
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-conservative-shift-hits-060000066.html
For Many Home Buyers, a 5% Down Payment Isn't Enough; Half of mortgage borrowers put down at least 20% in April. That is locking many people out of homeownership. (Todays WSJ).
"Half of existing-home buyers in April who used mortgages put at least 20% down, according to a National Association of Realtors survey. In 10 years of record-keeping, that percentage has hit or exceeded 50% three times, and all have been since last fall. A quarter of existing-home buyers in April paid cash, the highest level since 2017 , NAR said.
Home prices are surging. The median existing-home price rose 19% from a year earlier to $341,600 in April, a record high, according to NAR. That is largely because there aren't enough homes on the market to meet demand.
Bigger down payments can cushion the housing market in a downturn. In the 2007-09 recession, home buyers who had made tiny down payments were quickly underwater as soon as home prices started to fall.
Briana Stansbury, who works at a community college in Portland, Ore., recently made an offer on a two-bedroom house. She used a 5%-down loan program that Freddie Mac offers for first-time buyers, and she agreed to go through with the purchase even if the appraisal came in as much as $10,000 below her purchase price of $371,500.
That put Ms. Stansbury at risk of having to come up with extra cash in a hurry, but she had lost out on bids for other houses and thought it would give her a leg up.
Ms. Stansbury lost sleep while she waited for the appraisal. But it came back above the sale price, and she closed on the house in May."