Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

Obiterdictum: Thanks for your response.

You are welcome

Can you comment on Justice Gorsuch comments, below: (especially the bold portion)

JUSTICE GORSUCH: I -- I guess,
counsel, I'm -- I'm a little confused at this
declaratory judgment as to -- with respect to
future actions, it seems to me like it would be
appropriate for hanging on the wall but not much
else. The plaintiffs here have sought
declaratory judgment in aid of further remedies
retrospective -- retroactive remedies that might
actually do them some good, and -- and -- and
that's the Third Amendment.
And I guess I'm a little confused why

we wouldn't proceed to hold that the Third
Amendment was void from the beginning by virtue
of the Appointments Clause problem. It's pretty
much what we did in Lucia, as you'll recall,
where we vacated the -- the ALJ's decision. Why
wouldn't we do the same here? End of Gorsuch quote.

I edited out the line numbers of Justice Gorsuch words, to facilitate ease of reading. If I recall, its on pages 64-66 of transcript.

This is a question seeking clarification from Mr. Mooppan (federal government) about why the 3rd amendment should not be voided.

Source: Supreme court transcrip:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2020/19-422_o7jp.pdf

Indeed, if the Third amendement sweep was "void" would that not require a unwinding of it, and return of proceeds to the company?

Perhaps. What the actual monetary remedy should be in the case of voiding the 3rd amendment is not a question before the Supreme Court.