This is from the decision on pg. 13-14, where the SCOTUS has basically said that so long as the FHFA does something that is in its best interests, even though it's antithetical to its primary duty to preserve and conserve, the anti-injunction clause prevents any court from issuing an injunction or ruling (with the exception of course, as always with Constitutional Violations by FHFA): "An FHFA conservatorship, however, differs from a typi-
cal conservatorship in a key respect. Instead of mandating
that the FHFA always act in the best interests of the regu-
lated entity, the Recovery Act authorizes the Agency to act
in what it determines is “in the best interests of the regu-
lated entity or the Agency.” §4617(b)(2)(J)(ii) (emphasis
added). Thus, when the FHFA acts as a conservator, it may
aim to rehabilitate the regulated entity in a way that, while
not in the best interests of the regulated entity, is beneficial to the Agency and, by extension, the public it serves. This
distinctive feature of an FHFA conservatorship is fatal to
the shareholders’ statutory claim."
Basically, the FHFA can do just about anything under the thinly guised veil of, "it helps the FHFA or has a public good aspect to it", and the shareholders are powerless because the SCOTUS has slammed the door shut on any type of judicial branch review!
Even a Constitutional Challenge (e.g., a Takings Claim) on some new devious and deceptive way to shake down the shareholders financial interests in the Billions will take years to work its way through the courts and it will make the shareholders look like they are asking for "a big ask".
Not to mention, what politician doesn't want billions for their latest pet project and would it not be too tempting for them to take the nonappropriated funds through the gses and by the time the SCOTUS reviews that Unconstitutional action the politician will either be out of office or already reelected?
