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.
US Senate Banking Committee Tim Scott statement on SCOTUS Cert:
https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/minority/scott-statement-on-scotus-cfpb-announcement
Hi Kthomp - the 5th Circuit and possibly the 6th Circuit on Remand could make the SPS Void in Collins (5th) or Rop ( 6th on Remand).
TH is the best guidance at this point. Everything else is speculation or by virtue of some to beat down the price of commons for their own interests.
Perhaps none of this litigation will be successful or it will just be another pyrrhic victory but it needs to play out unless the USG settles which no one seems to believe will be the outcome.
The USG did finally settle the All American case which was the predecessor appropriations case in the 5th Circuit.. The settlement was a stand still where no more enforcements actions would be taken but the fees and actions prior to the Court win remained in place. Even if the Liquidation Preference is frozen as part of a court outcome or settlement it is a win for common.
Hi Navy - there were two cases CFPB Cases up for Cert - not sure if this is the point. Perhaps they are only reviewing one of the two cases. Perhaps the poster is confused because it would be easy. I dont know about the particular cases to determine
Robert is right. The SPSA could be deemed void by the 5th in Collins or the 6th in Remand from SCOTUS. The Rop litigation is a stretch but shareholders have a good shot in the 5th depending on what SCOTUS does with the CFPB case.
You are in an alternate reality of the US Bankruptcy Code. Not applicable here
The authors are at the Hoover Institute
So is Richard Epstein
https://www.hoover.org/profiles/richard-epstein
MQD is not ripe now but if an Admin Action happens it could be.
Thanks Guido
Wonder if his book is going to cover how the Senate Banking Committee's efforts to stabilize the GSEs were blown up by the UST and the NEC with the Nationalization Memo. Calabria was probably in the March 2008 Meeting between Shelby, Dodd, Paulson, Dick Syron and Daniel Mudd. Is his Book going to address the UST and NEC misconduct?
Here is Hank's Statement for 7/15/08 US Senate Banking Committee Hearing. Calabria was on the Senior Staff of Committee at this time. Shelby was Chair and Dodd Ranking Member
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/071508PaulsonHMPTestimony.pdf
Hank stated:
Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed
capital backstop. If either of these authorities is used, it would be done so only at Treasury’s discretion,
under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury and the
GSE. I have for some time urged a broad range of financial institutions to raise capital and at Treasury
we have constantly encouraged the GSEs to do just that. In March, at my request, both the Chairman
and Ranking Member of this Committee hosted a meeting with me and the CEOs of the two GSEs
where they agreed to raise capital and you began the effort to move your GSE reform bill, which is now
hopefully about to be enacted with the modifications we are recommending today.
As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises. Our plan
addresses current market challenges by ensuring, on a temporary basis, access to both liquidity and
capital, while also ensuring that the GSEs can fulfill their mission – a mission that remains critical to
homeowners and homebuyers across the country, especially during this housing correction."
Here is what was happening behind the scenes with emails between the UST Undersecretary - NEC Advisor- OFHEO Head and Daniel Mudd who was in Hong Kong trying to raise capital - Check out the email trail - the For Your Eyes Only Nationalization Memo - the set up meeting to fail with the Senator Shelby -
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-testimony/2007-2008_Fannie_Mae_Timeline_and_Supporting_Documents.pdf
Hank set up the meeting in March to raise capital while his Undersecretary was blowing up the success of any capital raise. In May the GSES raised billions in new JPS an investors took Hank and the USG at its word that they supported GSE public ownership and that the GSEs were adequately capitalized.
The only true statement was that the GSEs were adequately capitalized.
Former Director Calabria was probably at this meeting as part of Shelby's staff - what did he know then and what does he think about it now? Is it in his book?
Good points Guido - Alioto seems stuck in his perspective generally but this is where I think TH is oversimplifying since SCOTUS does seem to believe in the separation of powers. Seems like Collins created a whole menu of potential separation of powers claims and we are fortunate to have plaintiff attorneys who are taking this as far as these claims may go. Does SCOTUS really want to give tacit consent to a series of Acting Directors? Do they really want to let a POTUS interpret a statute based on political opportunism? Do they really want to protect run away federal agencies that can target certain companies for penalities and use the funds to expand a political inquisition? Seems like SCOTUS would want to rule and keep the Constitutional structure of US Government in tact. We will see.
None of us have much credibility - some of have our principles and most of us are hoping that a future POTUS will see how much money can be made available by an Exit. The best thing we can do is to bring awareness at the right times. I still think Jared Bernstein is going to want to restructure the GSEs - this admin or next JB term if there is one. Otherwise I think we need to bring this misconduct to the attention to DeSantis. DJT knows already.
Hope you are right. I know that TH thinks the Federalist Society is anti-GSEs but Thapar seems to be a solid Federalist Society member.
You are entitled to your opinion
In Oral Arguments - Judge Thapar basically asked the DOJ lawyer if POTUS could just appoint a series of Acting Directors under the Appointments Clause and the DOJ said Yes. Unfortunately 2 of the 3 Judges did not find a problem with that answer.
We probably should assume this will be denied Cert based off past actions by SCOTUs but it does not seem like it should be Constitutional. It would have been great to have this case in the 5th Circuit.
The dissent was by Amul Thapar who was considered by DJT for SCOTUS. He is a member of the Federalist Society and so are members of the 5th Circuit.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/amul-thapar
Thapar from the 6th and Oldham from the 5th at a Federalist Society Event
https://fedsoc.org/events/the-federalists-vs-the-anti-federalists
Thanks for the reply. I just saw this today but it would seem to me that the extension is normal course of business. Others may have a better perspective
Rop is now a Featured Petition on Scotusblog. USG brief not due until April so we have a few months before conference
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/rop-v-federal-housing-finance-agency/
I want to thank you for your service Clark6290 but you have no idea who Brydon Fisher is and what extraordinary efforts he has made on behalf of GSE shareholders - he is a patriot in my opinion because he has spent time and treasure to fight on behalf of shareholders and those who believe that the foundation of our capital markets is fairness, transparency and reasonableness in outcomes.
He still has outstanding litigation in the DC Circuit and filed an Amicus Brief with SCOTUS in Collins.
Will DeSantis Care about USG stealth nationalization of the GSEs?
Here is Hank's Statement for 7/15/08 US Senate Banking Committee Hearing. Calabria was on the Senior Staff of Committee at this time. Shelby was Chair and Dodd Ranking Member
https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/071508PaulsonHMPTestimony.pdf
Hank stated:
Let me stress that there are no immediate plans to access either the proposed liquidity or the proposed
capital backstop. If either of these authorities is used, it would be done so only at Treasury’s discretion,
under terms and conditions that protect the U.S. taxpayer and are agreed to by both Treasury and the
GSE. I have for some time urged a broad range of financial institutions to raise capital and at Treasury
we have constantly encouraged the GSEs to do just that. In March, at my request, both the Chairman
and Ranking Member of this Committee hosted a meeting with me and the CEOs of the two GSEs
where they agreed to raise capital and you began the effort to move your GSE reform bill, which is now
hopefully about to be enacted with the modifications we are recommending today.
As I have said, we support the current shareholder-owned structure of these enterprises. Our plan
addresses current market challenges by ensuring, on a temporary basis, access to both liquidity and
capital, while also ensuring that the GSEs can fulfill their mission – a mission that remains critical to
homeowners and homebuyers across the country, especially during this housing correction."
Here is what was happening behind the scenes with emails between the UST Undersecretary - NEC Advisor- OFHEO Head and Daniel Mudd who was in Hong Kong trying to raise capital - Check out the email trail - the For Your Eyes Only Nationalization Memo - the set up meeting to fail with the Senator Shelby -
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-testimony/2007-2008_Fannie_Mae_Timeline_and_Supporting_Documents.pdf
Hank set up the meeting in March to raise capital while his Undersecretary was blowing up the success of any capital raise. In May the GSES raised billions in new JPS an investors took Hank and the USG at its word that they supported GSE public ownership and that the GSEs were adequately capitalized.
The only true statement was that the GSEs were adequately capitalized.
Wouldnt DeSantis care about what happened in the Swamp and how the USG was partly complicit in the onset of the GFC?
Calabria was there - what did he know then and what does he know now.
Thanks Guido
Looks like a massage rather than major change:
FHFA estimates that under the proposed rule, the total CET1 capital required to meet the Enterprises’ risk-based capital
requirements as of June 30, 2022 would decline by approximately $0.2 billion due to the eight other changes listed above.
Overall, FHFA estimates that under the proposed rule, the total CET1 required to meet the Enterprises’ risk-based capital
requirements and buffers as of June 30, 2022 would decline modestly from approximately $226.4 billion to approximately
$220.8 billion. Similarly, total required adjusted total capital would decline from approximately $302.4 billion to $294.2
billion
Seems like DeSantis is aware of the power of the Administrative State. Maybe he can pick up Trumps idea and make $ 100bn - $ 200 bn without screwing shareholders Day 1 via a Consent Degree and Exit from Conservatorship.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/florida-gov-ron-desantis-desire-to-drain-the-swamp-by-moving-federal-agencies-out-of-dc-is-an-idea-that-dates-back-years/ar-AA17OCCX?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=a2a6d684b0ea4d5fab485bfb104bd08c
Hi Familymang,
As you know - here is the 1 in the 2-1 - Judge Amul Thapar. Pointing out his Federalist Society street cred.
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/amul-thapar
Do you have any idea when Rop is up for conference? - case number?
Here is an interesting pair discussing separation of powers issues. 6th Circuit and 5th Circuit. Judges talking Separation of Powers at a Federalist Society shing dig
https://fedsoc.org/events/the-federalists-vs-the-anti-federalists
Hi Robert - here is another piece of information to put in your brainstorming cap.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/362
S.362 - A bill to require the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies to take risk profiles and business models of institutions into account when taking regulatory actions, and for other purposes.
118th Congress (2023-2024) |
There is no text yet but it is proposed by Senator Rounds. Seems to me that the title seems to be consistent with some of the MQD issues. Maybe Senator Rounds is waiting for SCOTUS to take up the CFPB case. Daines could possibly use this Bill as a placeholder for the Chamber of Commerce and the other stakeholder concerns with the CFPB?
Perhaps totally wrong but given all of the attention today on the MQD it seemed reasonable to flag the new l potential legislation.
There would be a totally new Statute of Limitations - it would be when an Admin Action was deemed finalized or ripe for litigation. I would imagine that the Utilty Model would have to be implemented via a CFR regulation and when that was finalized the litigation would be ripe to be challenged. The Utility Model as proposed by Brookings is quite complex to implement and would involve setting up a new subsidiary jointly owned by FNMA and FMCC to own the UST equity. It is almost giving the FHFA a little investment fund to manage so I would expect that there could be an appropriations clause challenge also.
My point in all of this is that if the JB Admin wants to monetize the UST investment they should just exercise the warrants and write down the SPS. I would assume this would be the opinion of TH also. They should make shareholders like Ackman feel they are being treated fairly or there could be 20 to 50 billion reasons to challenge an Admin action and it would seem that the MQD and possibly the appropriations clause could be the basis for a challenge.
Thank you for your letter and advocacy Vancmike.
As Kthomp pointed out the CBO Restructuring Paper was requested by Chair McHenry. I would hope his staff knew enough about the situation with the GSEs to be critical of your points but I doubt that. What they will know is that a concerned citizen took the time and effort to send Members of Congress with Oversight a well reasoned and researched letter about a very important issue for our economy and the US Housing policy.
Thanks again and keep up the good fight. Some day we will win.
Thank you NeoSunTzu - really appeciate you comments about the work of Robert. He is real patriot in my mind and I was trying to joust back in respect for all the work and contributions to this Board. I mentioned the fact that the author was a 2nd year intern because I had noticed you had been very diligent in a previous post and mentioned a footnote.
The blog on the MQD seems to be very good and the references to the Judge Gorsuch's opinions will be playing out real time as SCOTUS considers the student loan forgiveness case. What I think or what anyone thinks about the MQD does not matter since it will be further refined by SCOTUS in an opinion we will see by July at the latest.
My purpose is to bring balance to the Board since I am concerned that some on this Board have a vested interest adverse to common and JPS shareholders. I dont believe it is in any shareholders interest to demean the property rights and reasonable expectations of shareholders. Personally I own very little common but believe that a fair resolution for common is a good thing for JPS also since it is foundational to fair treatment for JPS shareholders also.
Thanks again for the follow up and your thoughts.
Hi Robert,
The question for the MQD would seem to me to be a prospective one. I am assuming that the common equity of the GSEs will be worth $ 100 to $ 250 bn at the time of any proposed regulatory action by the FHFA or an Admin Action such as the implementation of the Utility Model as proposed by Michael Calhoun and the Brookings Institution.
The current or future Admin could either settle with common and JPS shareholders and get buy in from such an action or they could take a regulatory or Admin action that would be adverse to common and/or JPS Shareholders. If the proposed Admin Action includes a cramdown of common the incentive to sue would be to recover $ 20 to $ 50 bn of GSE value that is rightfully owned by the Common Shareholders. The suit could be brought by a major common shareholder like Ackman for example. The relief sought would be to void any admin action that was done in contravention of the regulatory power granted to the FHFA by Congress which would stop the Admin Action from being completed.
The question for the Court would be whether or not the FHFA had the authority to implement the Admin Action based on HERA as interpreted by Collins. Has TH or ROLG speculated on whether the Utility Model could be imposed on the GSEs and withstand a credible legal challenge based on the applicability of the MQD?
Of course we will know a lot more after the Student Loan case is decided. It would seem that a major common shareholder would not have standing issues to bring a challenge on the MQD? Perhaps Familymang has insight on this hypothetical ?
Thanks Robert. Those were some pessimistic posts from ROLG and TH. TH seems to hold out some hope for an Admin Action though.
Although it does seem to be a contrarian view I for one go back to the basic principle that Collins was a results oriented bad decision that has boxed SCOTUS in regarding separation of powers violations. We are fortunate to have plaintiff shareholders who believe the case is still worth fighting for and will take this case to the end of the world as the US Constitution knows it. Thank God ROLG is not one of the plaintiffs or plaintiff lawyers.
What does not make sense about TH's opinion about the Roberts court is that Collins was decided when DJT was President and the odds were that DJT would be reelected and that Calabria would have gotten the GSEs out of Conservatorship by now with or without Collins. Collins just prevented the plaintiffs leverage in an outcome that was expected to result in an exit from Conservatorship. Even if the GOP would have one the Georgia US Senate Seats - we could have seen an exit pushed via a compromise between Toomey and the House.
It is my personal opinion that the Separation of Powers chickens are coming back to SCOTUS to roost and SCOTUS will have to continue to try to find a narrower and narrower solution if their goal is to screw the GSEs as TH suggest because it does seem that they do believe in separation of powers principles.
Regarding the MQD principle - it would be best used to challenge an Admin Action promoting the Utility Model - it is hard to see how HERA authorized and end around to the Charters.
Probably all wrong but I do think that the 5th Circuit will give shareholders justice if they are given the chance. TH seems to think that SCOTUS will go out of its way to deny justice to the GSEs even it is means they end up compromising separation of powers principles.
In any event probably only a couple of more years of litigation in time for a new POTUS like DeSantis or another JB Term with Jared Bernstein and Brookings pushing the Utility Model.
Hope ROLG gives his stock to his grandkids for Karma.
Vancmike - you are correct. I am just pointing out reasonable transparency for material events which seems always to be less probable than not.
Thanks Familymang - perhaps if there is no public capital raise planned there is nothing to disclose but it the a GSE was planning a capital raise it may be disclosed? This seems really material to GSE equity but also to the MBS market?
So no Admin Action also? Brainard and Bernstein aren't going to do anything on the GSEs - correct?
What is your interpretation of the Publication provisions on Page 23 of the Rule?
Publication. With respect to an Enterprise subject to this section, FHFA
may disclose publicly any or all of the following:
(i) The stress capital buffer provided to an Enterprise under paragraph (g)(1)
or (h)(5) of this section;
(ii) Adjustments made pursuant to paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this section;
(iii) A summary of the results of the supervisory stress test; and
(iv) Other information.
It is hard to understand but I would think that this information is definitely material and should be disclosed for GSE equity investors but also for all MBS debt investors?
Thanks - I did not understand that. Do you think it will be reported in the SEC filings - it is material information?
We should have a 5 year forward looking timeline into any potential capital raises by May 20th. The Boards of FNMA and FMCC must have considered and approved these plans before the May 20th deadline
https://www.fhfa.gov/SupervisionRegulation/Rules/Pages/Capital-Planning-and-Stress-Capital-Buffer-Determination--Final-Rule.aspx
Excerpt:
On December 27, 2021, FHFA published in the Federal Register a notice of
proposed rulemaking (the proposal or proposed rule) seeking comments on FHFA’s
proposal to require each Enterprise to submit annual capital plans to FHFA and provide
prior notice for certain capital actions. The proposal incorporated the determination of the
stress capital buffer from the ERCF1 into the capital planning process. The requirements
in the proposal were consistent with the regulatory framework for capital planning for
large bank holding companies. FHFA is now adopting this final rule as proposed.
1 86 FR 73187 (Dec. 27, 2021).
3
The final rule’s requirement to develop capital plans will allow the Enterprises to
identify the amount of capital they need to raise to meet the ERCF’s requirements, and to
consider the timing of when to raise capital, and what types of capital to raise. The final
rule, like the ERCF, is intended to provide a stable regulatory framework for the
Enterprises for an extended period, including after they achieve adequate capitalization
under the ERCF.
II. Overview of the Final Rule
After carefully considering the comments on the proposed rule, and as described
in this preamble, FHFA is adopting the capital planning requirements and stress capital
buffer determination as proposed. FHFA continues to believe that the Enterprises should
have robust systems and processes in place that incorporate forward-looking projections
of revenue and losses to monitor and maintain their internal capital adequacy.
Furthermore, each Enterprise should operate with an amount of capital that is
commensurate with each Enterprise’s risk profile. FHFA also believes that the stress
capital buffer determination should be part of the capital planning process.
Specifically, the final rule will require an Enterprise to develop and maintain a
capital plan, which the Enterprise must generally submit to FHFA by May 20 of each
year, after it has been reviewed by the Enterprise’s board of directors or a designated
committee thereof. The plan must contain certain mandatory elements, including an
assessment of the expected sources and uses of capital over a planning horizon that
reflects the Enterprise’s size and complexity, assuming both expected and stressful
conditions. This includes the Enterprise’s internal baseline scenario and internal stress
scenario, as well as additional scenarios that may be provided by FHFA. The planning
4
horizon is at least five years for the Enterprise’s scenarios and at least nine consecutive
quarters for the FHFA scenarios. The capital plans also must include any planned capital
actions and consider the regulatory capital buffers.
The final rule includes the factors that FHFA will consider in reviewing a plan,
including its comprehensiveness and reasonableness given the assumptions and analysis
underlying the plan and the robustness of the Enterprise’s capital adequacy process. A
plan must be resubmitted if there is a material change in the Enterprise’s risk profile,
financial condition, or corporate structure. FHFA also may require an Enterprise to
resubmit its capital plan if the plan is incomplete or FHFA determines resubmission is
necessary to monitor risks to capital adequacy. In general, an Enterprise must receive
prior approval from FHFA to make a capital distribution, if the distribution would occur
after an event that requires a resubmission. There is also a post-notice requirement for
certain capital distributions.
In addition to requiring a capital plan, the rule incorporates the stress capital
buffer from the ERCF into the capital planning process and makes the necessary
conforming amendments to the ERCF. After FHFA notifies the Enterprise of its stress
capital buffer each year, the Enterprise must adjust its planned capital distributions to be
consistent with the capital distribution limitations effective under the new stress capital
buffer. The final rule changes the stress capital buffer’s calculation method slightly by
considering an Enterprise’s planned common stock dividends for the fourth through
seventh quarters of the planning horizon rather than the ERCF direction to use each of the
nine quarters of the planning horizo
This would probably require legislation wouldn't it? Need to change Charters and create a new one?
Admin Action would probably require that a new entity jointly owned by the GSEs would hold UST equity and use proceeds for housing initiatives.
This is where the Major Question Doctrine and the relevance of the student loan cases might come in. Does HERA allow the FHFA to set up a utility model structure based on the purpose and powers granted in the legislation.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/022123zor_g20h.pdf
SCOTUSblog is quite good and provides all the SCOTUS links also
Thanks - I am not sure if the DOJ is using Calcutt in its briefs before the 5th in Collins. I am wondering about the interplay and timing of this Cert.
Do you know how to access the Rop Cert petition on the SCOTUS website? I am interested in who may file Amicus briefs in this one and how the timing could play out.
Right now it seems like we have the following cases that could be granted Cert regarding the FHFA?
1. Two CFPB cases that are related
2. Calcutt
3. Rop
4. The student loan cases if you think the MQD will have impact on the GSE resolution.
Do you agree that nothing happens in Bhatti until Collins is decided?
Hi Familymang,
Thanks for that insight. What do you think about Calcutt? Does this fit into the considerations regarding whether or not the Collins case in the 5th will be stayed?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-714.html
It doesnt see that Calcutt will be up for Conference for a while since a reply is due March 3rd.
Hi Robert - it does look like we may know about the CFPB case tomorrow. I just looked at the calendar on SCOTUS Blog and it has been updated to make it an Order issuance day also - I had thought it was going to be delayed a full week to the 27th due to the Holiday.
What is interesting in the MQD is that the West Virginia case is so new that there is not much of a road map and the outcome is in some ways just a philosophical or political interpretation by SCOTUS at this point in the application of the MQD. Here is the excerpt from the cite that NeoSonTzu referenced regarding the guidelines proposed by Justice Gorsuch - it is just full of judgement calls and decisions on what is a " great political significance." for example:
Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, to “offer some additional observations” on the major questions doctrine.
Gorsuch characterized the major questions doctrine as a clear statement rule developed to ensure judicial adherence to the constitutional principle of separation of powers, similar to the clear statement rules on retroactive liability and waivers of sovereign immunity. Gorsuch then identified the following triggers, based on the Court’s precedents, for determining that “an agency action involves a major question for which clear congressional authorization is required:
First, if the agency is claiming power to resolve a matter of “great ‘political significance’” or if the agency is seeking to end an “earnest and profound debate across the country.” Instructive for these questions are whether Congress has considered and rejected taking similar action to that of the agency’s proposed action through legislation in the past.
Second, if the agency seeks to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy” or “require ‘billions of dollars in spending’ by private persons or entities.”
Third, if the agency seeks to intrude in an area that is the particular province of state law.
Gorsuch wrote that “this list of triggers may not be exclusive” but “each of the signs the Court has found significant in the past is present” in West Virginia v. EPA, making it “a relatively easy case for the doctrine’s application.”
Gorsuch then identified the following factors for determining whether a congressional authorization is sufficiently clear:
First, courts must look to the text of the statutory provisions “with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Oblique or elliptical language will not supply a clear statement, nor will gap-filler provisions.
Second, courts may examine the age and focus of the statute in relation to the problem being addressed, since “an agency’s attempt to deploy an old statute focused on one problem to solve a new and different problem may also be a warning sign that it is acting without clear congressional authority.”
Third, courts may examine the agency’s previous interpretation of the relevant statutory language. Where an agency asserts a new power after long interpreting a statute more narrowly, that warrants skepticism.
Fourth, courts should inquire as to whether there is a mismatch between an agency’s challenged action and its congressionally-assigned mission and expertise.
Gorsuch concluded that “[a]sking these questions again yields a clear answer in” West Virginia v. EPA—that the EPA lacked the requisite clear congressional authorization.
Hi Robert,
We will see if SCOTUS follows Gorsuch on this one.
Thank you for all your work and analysis.
You got ahead of appropriations clause relevancy and now it is central to the Collins appeal in the 5th Circuit.
Hi NeoSunTzu:
Great summary done by a second year law student as you probably know albeit it is on the Davis Polk website which is white shoe to the max as law firms go. I for one truly appreciate Robert's work on raising awareness of the potential issues. Ultimately it will soon be decided by SCOTUS and we will see how the 2nd year law student's analysis holds up.
Thanks for your contributions also.