Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

The Judges now have a problem, the SCOTUS did not say if the violating provision is severable or not, which effectively means "you figure it out, guys".

The Judges cannot rule or make unconstitutional decisions, which begs the question what does an unconstitutional § 4512(b)(2) mean?

the FHFA is now independent and headed by the president (as he can fire the FHFA director) this structure is unconstitutional as the SCOTUS said in CFPB

"While the CFPB’s independent, single-Director structure is sufficient to render the agency unconstitutional, the Director’s five-year term and receipt of funds outside the appropriations process heighten the concern that the agency will “slip from the Executive’s control, and thus from that of the people.”

just to clarify the CFPB is an agency within the Federal Reserve System which has a Board of Governors, the CFPB had shielded its director from the president while the Federal Reserve System is already shielded from the president by a board, this double protection is not allowed by SCOTUS and now the provision is severed as in theory the Federal Reserve System controls the CFPB and the president can appoint/choose the director(still unconstitutional but better than before)
the FHFA however is an agency with no parent agency, it is a standalone agency that is independent, headed by a single director, and this director is shielded from the president, this is uncontrolled power as only Board can be independent (and probably why Sandra said it is up to Congress to make a decision as everything she does is unconstitutional per se, as she was nominated by the president and might be confirmed by congress after the SCOTUS ruled the structure(Sandra/instead of a board) is unconstitutional so if she is confirmed, congress does not respect the SCOTUS opinion and the government dives into trouble ahead)

so if § 4512(b)(2) will be changed to "at-will" the structure still violates the separation of powers as the SCOTUS concluded, and the provision cannot be severed as that is not what the SCOTUS said, so it leaves the Judges with an impossible task, because if they say 4512(b)(2) is now "at-will" they created the 4th branch while the courts do not have that power, and thus this ruling is unconstitutional upfront, if they say it can be severed it is a revival of the APA claim as then the president forbids the courts ruling on his actions(4617)(f)(uncontrolled power) what again is unconstitutional per the separation of powers (and all precedents for independent agencies, and SCOTUS recent order)

then the district court: The first is Collins followed by Bhatti/Rop and when released Wazee, Collins/Bhatti now want relief for the fact that former president Trump could have fired the director earlier, the declaratory relief however still comes back to the question of what to do with the provision which cannot be ruled upon, so the judge can give relief for the years Trump could not fire the director, but if this relief is given it means it was thus "an unconstitutional taking" of shareholder rights for 14 years

in the Fannie and Freddie litigation, the most important hurdle is the constitutional claim, this is now solved by SCOTUS as it said the FHFA structure violates the constitution, all claims that rank lower must be put on hold because if relief is given(on lower-ranking claims) the outcome could mean an inaccurate relief or double recovery for the lower-ranking claims, and the lawsuits must be revisited

the federal court: as stated above "the takings" claims automatically won their case if the district court severs the violating provision as it lacked authority to put the companies into conservatorship(although this was not the opinion of SCOTUS, so very unlikely) but it would mean the president and the 2 federal agencies under the control of the president agreed to "self-dealing" allowed by congress in HERA(But that is another issue for another day lol)
then if the district court would change the "for cause" to "at-will" the plaintiffs in the federal court would also win as both the district and federal court do not have the power to change this provision into "at-will" as the SCOTUS explicitly forbids the independent/single director structure as this provision is the most important provision for being independent(and it would again violate the separation of powers (4617)(f)

So we all wait on Collins but judge Atlas also is aware of the Bhatti/Rop/Wazee lawsuits and therefore cannot give relief that is improper to the other cases, the Wazee case is the most troublesome for the government, it is a jury demand, may no longer operate as independent, and must strike down 4617(f) case, this is killing for the government of course as it has no control over a jury, and probably the reason they are still in "Civil Suspense until further Order of this Court"

this all is only the tip of the iceberg but all those and other issues disappear when the FHFA becomes constitutionally structured