Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

I think we all agree that it's crystal clear to us, especially based on the smoking guns in 6 years of painstaking discovery with Uncle Sug. Like you I am trying to figure out HOW the SCOTUS would deny the Collins Plaintiffs the relief they seek, so I welcome ideas!

You should really read the 5th Circuit EnBanc Ruling, it goes into great detail as to why their sister circuits and Lamberth differed. I think Judge Lamberth was the victim of perjury from a high ranking FHFA official as well. As I recall years ago, he said basically I can't help the Collins Plaintiffs, go write a letter to your Congresspeople! Today, I think there is still a contract claim pending for trial.

https://casetext.com/case/collins-v-mnuchin-4. The 5th Circuit on the anti-injunction clause:

"In Ward , relying on Onion , we held that the anti-injunction provision stopped a federal court from rescinding a receiver’s sale. We elaborated that there is a "difference between the exercise of a function or power that is clearly outside the statutory authority of the RTC on the one hand, and improperly or even unlawfully exercising a function or power that is clearly authorized by statute on the other."

"In Ward , selling low instead of high was an improper use of the receiver’s power to liquidate assets. But here, FHFA as conservator essentially liquidated assets without ever being appointed receiver. Improperly exercising a power is not restrainable, but exercising one beyond statutory authority is."

Other circuits follow the same interpretation. Even our sister courts that rejected claims like Counts I–III acknowledge the same rule: " Section 4617(f) will not protect the Agency if it acts either ultra vires or in some third capacity" besides conservator or receiver. So have circuits deciding unrelated cases against FHFA. To quote the Ninth Circuit, "the anti-judicial review provision is inapplicable when FHFA acts beyond the scope of its conservator power." And the Eleventh Circuit holds that "[t]he FHFA cannot evade judicial scrutiny by merely labeling its actions with a conservator stamp."

The provision’s plain meaning, FIRREA precedent, and HERA precedent show that we may grant relief if FHFA exceeded its statutory powers. The Agencies primarily contend that the Third Amendment falls within the conservatorship powers, 12 U.S.C. § 4617(b)(2). As we explain below, that is incorrect, at least at the pleading stage. But first, we address the Agencies’ arguments from disconnected provisions.

The 5th Circuit on the Succession Clause:

"To decide whether Counts I–III are direct or derivative, we begin with the cause of action. Counts I–III assert rights under the APA. Under 5 U.S.C. § 702, "[a] person suffering legal wrong ... or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a relevant statute is entitled to judicial review." And under 5 U.S.C. § 706, "[t]he reviewing court shall ... hold unlawful and set aside agency action" that is arbitrary and capricious, exceeds statutory authority, or is otherwise unlawful.

You are going to have to read the rest yourself, did you read it already? 16 or 9 people rarely are in total agreement on anything. What is it SPEFICALLY that you find convincing about the judges opinions that are in the minority OR that have ruled against the Collins Plaintiffs?