Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

"Doing so through a capital raise would have involved five basic steps, the first four
of which Director Calabria and Treasury actually took."

"Defendants resist Plaintiffs’ burden-shifting argument, but they cannot dispute that
the allocation of the burden in a presidential removal case presents a novel question
on which there is no controlling authority. Any non-public evidence of prejudice
from an unconstitutional removal restriction will invariably be in the government’s
exclusive possession, and the cheap shot FHFA takes at Plaintiffs for relying on
“podcasts and news stories” only underscores the point. See FHFA Br. 9. At the very
least, a remand for discovery into these disputed factual issues is warranted."

"As this case returns
from the Supreme Court, the question is whether FHFA and the Trump Treasury
Department would have gone “back to the bargaining table” but for Director Watt’s
for-cause removal protection. Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1781."

"The Court’s prior ruling did not place these issues in the broader context of
the Trump Administration’s housing finance reform policies or purport to address
whether Director Watt’s removal protection prevented the Trump Administration
from altering the Companies’ capital structures in a way that would have benefitted
Plaintiffs."