The REASON USSCT decided to hear the Collins appeal, when the Single Director removable "for cause" issue was decided in Seila Law, as it applied to the CFPB under the Dodd-Frank Act (probably like 10,000 pages long piece of legislation), is to see if it should also apply to HERA, which apparently does NOT have the magic language written in it (or clause), that says, "If any part of this legislation is found unconstitutional, the rest of the statute survives."
Also, SCOTUS said in Seila Law, that the only other agency that had a current similar structure was FHFA, which I believe they said, was another issue for another day.
The key here for us, is DAMAGES as a result of the "czar" or the unconstitutional agency director infringing on OUR Liberties as shareholders, by signing the Net Worth Swipe (and giving away all of our profits/capital into perpetuity for NOTHING!).
So, they will very likely find the SAME SINGLE DIRECTOR UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITH FHFA.
Now, they have to decide, "Whatcha you gunna do bout it?"
They have many options:
(1) Remand back to the 5th Circuit to figure out damages (like they did in Seila)-BUT AS YOU POINT OUT, they could have just ruled in Seila Law that FHFA is ALSO unconstitutionally structured, denied the cert petition in Collins, and remanded back to the 5th Circuit to see if MC would have ratified the NWS, WITHOUT THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL INFIRMITY IN HERA. But, they didn't why?
(2) They could invalidate HERA in it's entirety (I think Gorusch and Thomas wanted to do this in Seila), thus INVALIDATING EVERY SINGLE ACTION THAT WAS LITIGATED ON THIS POINT, which helps us. They did say however, that they prefer a scalpel to a bulldozer. BUT WHY DIDN'T HERA include the same provision or clause allowing them to use a scalpel versus a bulldozer?
(3) They could rule something like, "Since this is an APA (i.e., Administrative Procedures Act) violation that was performed by an improperly insulated and unconstitutional director, THE NWS IS INVALID AND VOID)." HERE WE FINALLY GET THE RESOLUTION WE ARE SEEKING!
NO. 3 has several appealing attributes for the Supremes:
(A) It clogs up some MAJOR LITIGATION HEADED THEIR WAY.
(B) Closes off further litigation on the contoversial Net Worth Swipe!
(C) It allows UST/FHFA to get on with their plans to recap and release (and relist).
Also, by dragging this out a little longer:
(1) MC is still the reigning CZAR over the twins, removable only "for cause" by POTUS (thanks Pocahontas for making us wait until Watts 5yr term expired) UNTIL HIS 5YR TERM ENDS. So, if JB wins, he and UST can come to a "meeting of the minds", settle with Plaintiff and the case becomes MOOT, and now JB has got to sue to remove MC if he wants to.
(2) It could give us the FINAL DEFINITIVE LEGAL END for the NWS, the elusive Justice we have been striving for, for the last 8 plus years now!
(3) If DJT wins, it will give him the political cover to end the NWS, since the USSCT made him do it. BUT THIS POLITICAL COVER IDEA is getting old as DJT is close to finishing his 1st 4yr term and despite saying for roughly the LAST 4 YRS, "THEY NEED TO LEAVE GOVERNMENT CONTROL", we are STILL pretty much where we were 4 YRS ago (but SP was $5/share not $1 or $2/share.
