If you are familiar with Supreme Court decisions, they are rarely simple, unless the court is trying to make a point on a relatively new issue. Here, two things appear settled: removal of Director, FHFA, for cause only will be struck down, as will the Third Amendment. The logic behind each of those is fairly simple. It's the remedy that's the tough part.
Regarding the Third Amendment, if you listened to the oral argument, it appears fairly certain that the NWS will be ruled ultra vires. There didn't seem to be any receptive audience for the government's position. If liberal justices like Breyer and Kagan peppered government counsel on such a fundamental question as "under what theory of conservatorship can a conservator give away all of its ward's assets?" does anyone think the solidly conservative majority of Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito and Kavanaugh, will ignore the conservator's violation of its statutory responsibility of "preserving and conserving"? I had my misgivings about how the plaintiffs brought this case, but one thing they did well was they brought it on very technical legal grounds, rather than in equity, which lends itself far more to a decision based upon individual judges' prejudices, especially against "greedy speculators."
I've read lots of arguments about potential conclusions on these boards, but just like the case before SCOTUS, I haven't seen anyone "show their work" and explain how the GSEs become sound and solvent by giving away everything they make in perpetuity. If anyone had such an explanation, they should have delivered it to government counsel about six months ago, because they certainly didn't have one either, and a hypothetical of what could be done ain't working either after eight years of proof to the contrary.
I've always said the big question here is what remedy will be handed down. That could go a lot of ways, which could mean a slim majority and several concurring and/or dissenting opinions. The Justices are aware their decision will have profound real world effects, which could make them cautious. I'd love to see a SCOTUS ruling that voids the NWS and issues a declaratory judgment in which they rule the debt paid and cancel the warrants. I expect far less, however, a voiding of the Third Amendment and a remand to fashion an appropriate remedy. We'd see a bump in the SP from this alone, and it would push us further down the path to ending the conservatorship than we've been in years, so I'd take it.
