Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[clarencebeaks21]

KT is correct. In Seila & Collins separation of powers cases SCOTUS faced a separate severance-type decision — not just with the offending clause (e.g., for-cause) — but whether the power itself could survive the change effected by the SCOTUS opinion. As KT intimates the court doesn’t always reveal all its thoughts, but in both Seila & Collins, its action (or perhaps its inaction, depending on your existential views) still has the same force of law. I suspect in Seila it was an analytical no-brainer that the CFPB should be able to go on issuing CIDs with or without ‘for cause’. CFPB can still issue CIDs. Of course.

It might have been a closer call on 4617(b)(2)(J)(2) had a different right been offended such as a first or sixth amendment right. But that was not the case. Moreover there is no guarantee that a constitutional claim alone would have standing(Collins deftly avoids that thorn). So FHFA can still make public-interest choices and choices against holders. As long as objectively rational even if bone-headed. Merry hristmas