Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

The devil is in the detail as always, 4617f bought a little bit more time for the government, the questions asked in collins was 1) for cause, and 2) the 3rd amendment, the SCOTUS however answered (and this is very very important), 1) the 3rd and 2) for cause, if it would have been the other way around like plaintiffs asked, the APA claim could not have failed as the authority was missing so

Collins:
1) for cause
2) the 3rd

SCOTUS answer:
1) the 3rd
2) for cause

the 3rd is now only legal because the SCOTUS answered the 3rd amendment question first, if "for cause" was the first question they answered, the FHFA would have been unconstitutionally structured and 4617f could then not have been legal, as the president cannot block judicial power, the trouble the FHFA has is severe, so yes the SCOTUS did everything in their power to prevent the FHFA from becoming void-ab-initio but it is a matter of time, the clock is running and if you look at the soft plaintiff's questions/arguments one might think they are up to something

4617 f --- mother Fkr