Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

The SCOTUS judges can only answer the questions asked

these are the questions asked by Collins :

(1) Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and
(2) Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.

And since the case is consolidated with the Mnuchin case
These are the governments questions:

(3) Whether the statute’s anti-injunction clause, which precludes courts from taking any action that would “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator,” 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment.
(4) Whether the statute’s succession clause (12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i)) —under which FHFA, as conservator, inherits the shareholders’ rights to bring derivative actions on behalf of the enterprises—precludes the shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment.

So in other words the SCOTUS will find:
1) is “For cause” legal (12 U.S.C. §4512(b)(2) Term)
2) should the 3th amendment or final action the FHFA took (the conservatorship) be set aside as it was an unconstitutional agengy by “for cause” and should it strike down 12 U.S.C. § 4511(a) Establishment

as a consequence the FHFA will become Executive with a “at will” removal head of the agency, and the 3th amendment needs to be severed from the PSPA, which makes the PSPA By 6.7 & 6.12 of the contract voidable for the FHFA-C and with fiduciary duties just reinstalled it will mean the end of the PSPA

3) 12 U.S.C. 4617(f) is illegal both ways, in an independent agency style, it precludes the courts, and as executive agency it precludes the court from taking action, so they either way have uncontrolled massive power and nobody is responsible in case of a mistake
4) 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2)(A)(i)) does not prevent shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment , as otherwise the shareholder interests are not protected, any action they take that acts outside there statute can be challenged

as a consequence ,12 U.S.C. 4617(f) need to be severed from HERA and with that the fiduciary duty is back for shareholders, this action will probably be remanded for damages but the outcome in SCOTUS is a final ruling on the Merits

From your understanding, can SCOTUS provide damages to the shareholders in the Collins case?

Or, can they order payback of all payments above the original $187B plus 10% interest to the GSE’s.

I’m not asking if they will, just asking if they can.

Lastly, can they send it back to the 5th with instructions on how to proceed? If so, can’t the 5th new decision be appealed back to SCOTUS, which could turn into a never ending circle?.........