Even Justice Gorsuch was skeptical about the remedial dodge the SCOTUS just heaped on the Plaintiffs! I think all that IS REQUIRED IS A SHOWING VIA A PUBLIC STATEMENT OR INTERNAL EMAIL SHOWING THE POTUS COULDN'T FIRE THE FHFA DIRECTOR!
I am pretty sure that the Plaintiffs DO NOT need to show a casual link because they won't need to create a "but for" world to show that they were harmed, ONLY THAT POTUS THOUGHT THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO FIRE THE FHFA DIRECTOR BECAUSE OF HERA!
From Justice Gorsuch:
"Consider the guidance the Court offers. It says lower
courts should examine clues such as whether the President
made a “public statement expressing displeasure” about
something the Director did, or whether the President “at-
tempted” to remove the Director but was stymied by lower
courts. Ibid. But what if the President never considered
the possibility of removing the Director because he was
never advised of that possibility? What if his advisers
themselves never contemplated the option given statutory
law? And even putting all that aside, what evidence should
courts and parties consult when inquiring into the Presi-
dent’s “displeasure”? Are they restricted to publicly availa-
ble materials, even though the most probative evidence may
be the most sensitive? To ascertain with any degree of con-
fidence the President’s state of mind regarding the Director,
don’t we need testimony from him or his closest staff?
The Court declines to tangle with any of these questions.
It’s hard not to wonder whether that’s because it intends for
this speculative enterprise to go nowhere. Rather than in-
trude on often-privileged executive deliberations, the Court
may calculate that the lower courts on remand in this suit
will simply refuse retroactive relief."
