Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

I think they are BOTH SIMILAR in that the SCOTUS MUST decide whether the provision that was found Unconstitutional in California v Texas IS severable from the rest of the ACA or should THE ENTIRE ACA BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL! IN COLLINS THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE UNCONSTITUTIONALLY INSULATED FHFA DIRECTOR PROVISION OF HERA CAN BE SEVERED OR MUST THE WHOLE STINKING HERA BE FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN ITS ENTIRETY!

This of course caused quite an uproar from 1 side of the aisle at ACB'S 2 day Senate Confirmation Hearing (It made Phil Donohue look tame by comparison!) I remember Senator Lindsey Graham quizzing ACB about EXACTLY what Severability Analysis is. Later Senator Graham told people not to get too excited about the SCOTUS finding the ACA Unconstitutional in its ENTIRETY BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY SAVE THE STATUTE AND EXCISE THE Constitutionally offensive provision, JUST LIKE THEY DID IN SEILA LAW!

So yeah, I think they BOTH involve Severability Analysis and the SCOTUS will likely make sure BOTH Severability Analysis cases don't inadvertently conflict with each other, so MAYBE later in the term is when we see it.

That said, NO ONE KNOWS and they could already have written BOTH opinions and believe Collins is ready for prime time on Monday or Thursday, stay tuned!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Texas#:~:text=Texas%20(Docket%2019-840),and%20Jobs%20Act%20of%202017.

Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional.
If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.