Freddie Mac (FMCC)

[obiterdictum]

Hi Blushing green - The ruling opinion is clearly stated in the beginning and at the end:

Because we find that the FHFA acted within its statutory authority by adopting the net worth sweep, we hold that the Shareholders’ APA claims are barred by § 4617(f). But we also find that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured and violates the separation of powers. page 3

We AFFIRM the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motions to dismiss the Shareholders’ APA claims because such claims are barred by 12 U.S.C. § 4617(f).

We REVERSE the district court’s order granting the Agencies’ motion for summary judgment regarding the Shareholders’ claim that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured in violation of Article II and the Constitution’s separation of powers, and we REMAND to the district court with instructions to enter judgment declaring the “for cause” limitation on removal of the FHFA’s Director found in 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2) violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principles. page 53

The net worth sweep remains intact and the FHFA continues on as before, with all previous actions accepted as made, with the exception that the removal for cause clause is to be severed.

We conclude that severing the removal restriction from HERA is the proper remedy in the instant case. As a result, we leave the remainder of HERA undisturbed. The removal restriction itself has little effect on the remainder of HERA. In fact, HERA remains operative as a law without the restriction; its remaining provisions are capable of functioning independently from the removal restriction.281 Given the exigent context in which the law was passed, it is unlikely that the entirety of HERA depended on a removal restriction. And though HERA contains no severability clause,282 “there is nothing in the statute’s text or historical context that makes it ‘evident’ that Congress, faced with the limitations imposed by the Constitution, would have preferred no [FHFA] at all” to one with a Director “removable at will” by the President.283

The appropriate remedy for the constitutional infirmity is to strike the language providing for good-cause removal from 12 U.S.C. § 4512(b)(2), restoring Executive Branch oversight to the FHFA. pages 52-53.

Willetts's dissent in part reflects closely the opinion of the Plaintiffs and their APA claims.

I cannot join the majority opinion’s conclusion that the Shareholder’s statutory claims are barred by HERA’s anti-injunction provision. page 61

HERA neither bars review of the Shareholders’ APA claim nor authorizes the FHFA as conservator to bleed the GSEs profits in perpetuity. page 83

A dissenting opinion does not offer legal relief, binding precedent or law. In other cases before a court, a dissenting opinion may be used to throw light upon the arguments and citations found in the majority opinion and is often used to bolster a legal counter argument being made. Even so, this dissenting opinion, punctuated with language indicating strongly felt considerations of the legal and de facto conditions of the GSEs and Plaintiffs, may or may not have impact on later cases.

The majority decided to maintain the existing legal status quo and threw a bone to those concerned with FHFA's constitutionality.

Source:
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV0.pdf