Obiterdictum:
Epstein seemed to emphasize "remedy", suggesting that we know it was unconstitutional, but that the lower courts ruled that the president could remove "for cause", but no payments would be made to shareholders.
?
Epstein further indicated the "breach of fidicuary duty" which, in his opinion is where shareholders could see compensation for the damages. (loss of dividends, share price/share value decline, based mostly on the net worth sweep confiscation of assets).
Its unclear if the "breach of fiduciary responsibilty" by the FHFA
(by ordering the NWS, and thus confiscating shareholder profits) is before Scotus. Does this mean the US Supreme Court "can not" order a compensation to shareholders, because that issue is not before the court? (case and controversy)
Correct.
Further, there are multiple lawsuits going on, in addition to Scotus, some of which have not been decided.
Are these other pending lawsuits brought to SCOTUS attention, or are they dealing EXCLUSIVELY with the appeals currently before scotus?
SCOTUS deals with the case it is hearing.
In other words, is Scotus attempting to resolve issues MORE than JUST those before the court?
No.
In my limited experience, my guess is that the US Supreme Court "wont do numbers", that is, order the UST to pay x dollars as restitution to the shareholders, but instead, remand that so that the dollar amount of losses can be determined by a lower court.
Monetary restitution is not before SCOTUS. What is before SCOTUS is:
1. Affirmation or Reversal of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs’ constitutional claim.
2. Reversal or Affirmation of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling of denying a meaningful remedy for FHFA’s violation of the separation of powers.
