The SCOTUS ruled that the nws was a valid act of the FHFA Director under HERA's incidental powers provision that they may do whatever is in the FHFA'S INTEREST OR THE PUBLIC IT SERVES. Excluding the shareholders from the capital structure should have some unconstitutional Takings Claim implications.
Unconstitutional Takings Claims can ONLY BE HEARD in the Court of Federal Claims (COFC). As I recall this is what J. Sweeney's court is still working on with a new younger Judge.
The Collins case is still alive and the only issue to be decided on remand is whether or not the Collins Plaintiffs can obtain a remedy for the harm caused by the POTUS not being able to have control over any confirmed directors.
"...it is still possible
for an unconstitutional provision to inflict compensable
harm. And the possibility that the unconstitutional re-
striction on the President’s power to remove a Director of
the FHFA could have such an effect cannot be ruled out."
The answer to that question may involve the court allowing the shareholders expanded Discovery to include all periods covering confirmed FHFA Directors.
"Were it not for that pro-
vision, they suggest, the President might have replaced one
of the confirmed Directors who supervised the implementa-
tion of the third amendment, or a confirmed Director might have altered his behavior in a way that would have bene-
fited the shareholders.
The federal parties dispute the possibility that the uncon-
stitutional removal restriction caused any such harm. They
argue that, irrespective of the President’s power to remove
the FHFA Director, he “retained the power to supervise the
[Third] Amendment’s adoption . . . because FHFA’s coun-
terparty to the Amendment was Treasury—an executive
department led by a Secretary subject to removal at will by
the President.” Reply Brief for Federal Parties 43. The par-
ties’ arguments should be resolved in the first instance by
the lower courts.26"
The government will likely file a Motion to Dismiss saying that the POTUS had plenty of control over the nws because he controlled the UST.
Since the nws is legal it means all shareholders suing on the LEGALITY of the nws are banned by the anti-injunction clause of HERA.
BUT THE US CONGRESS CAN NEVER PREVENT ANY US CITIZEN FROM SUING AND OBTAINING A COURT ORDER BASED ON A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION OF THEIR RIGHTS.
