Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[bcde]

"There's no breach of the constitution, then there is no constitutional claim."

US Constitution prohibits Gov from taking private property without proper compensation. It does not matter how Gov takes the private property whether complying with some laws or without complying with the laws or misinterpreting the laws.

Under principles of constitutional avoidance SCOTUS should have interpreted the statutory HERA so as to avoid ruling based on 5th amendment. A simple statutory ruling that NWS is illegal would have complied with this principle.

HERA says that conservator can act its own interest under incidental powers. HERA does not explicitly authorize Conservator to take the private property of FnF. So a constitutionally compliant interpretation would have made NWS unlawful.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constitutional_avoidance

Constitutional Avoidance

Constitutional Avoidance is the principal that, if possible, the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues, and resolve the cases before them on other (usually statutory) grounds. In practice, what this often means is that if the Supreme Court is faced with two possible interpretations of a statute, one of which is plainly constitutional, and the other of which is of questionable constitutionality, the court will interpret the statute as having the plainly constitutional meaning, to avoid the hard constitutional questions that would come with the other interpretation.