Ok, first, thanks again for the links, really appreciated. Bottom line - I think the warrants will stand legally:
- its far from certain we will get any favorable rulings ... some justices have held that the "for cause" constitutional violation is both severable AND does does not warrant retrospective relief ... it remains to be seen which way SCOTUS will rule on BOTH of these issues (some feel the Selia Law ruling settled both of these issues, but clearly there are enough differences between CFPB and FHFA that SCOTUS granted the certiorari petition)
- while plaintiffs claim that FHFA is unconstitutional on a number of grounds, they ONLY ask to vacate the NWS ... I did not see a single mention of asking for the warrants to be set aside (nor the PSPA for that matter) ... so even IF SCOTUS rules that the FHFA is unconstitutional, will that automatically vacate ALL FHFA decisions, including the cship itself? If that were to be true, then why focus on the NWS when the retro remedy for an unconstitutional agency would automatically void ALL decisions? I admit that it would be totally arbitrary for the court to award retro relief that only vacates the NWS and magically insulates ALL other decisions, but the apparent TOTAL absence of any other requested remedies makes me feel that is exactly what is most likely to happen (assuming we get any kind of favorable ruling at all).
- Having said the above, IF FHFA is ruled unconstitutional and only the NWS is vacated, I do wonder if other suits will arise that will challenge the cship itself (or will they be precluded by statute of limitations?)
- I'm still amazed and totally mystified with all of the fuss focused on the NWS, a 20% taking, when the 80% warrants are where the real theft occurred
cheers, shadow
