Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[ano]

it is what I expected, the SCOTUS and 5th circuit gave the district court a huge problem, let me try to explain

the 5th circuit held:
1) Third Amendment exceeded FHFA’s statutory powers
2) the "for cause" provision is unconstitutional

the SCOTUS held:
1) 4617(f) prohibits relief
2) the "for cause" provision is unconstitutional

Now the problem for the government starts:
The 5th circuit opinion could be appealed and gave no mandate to alter anything, then the SCOTUS came in and said the "for cause" provision is unconstitutional. this is final and is a new law, the provision is thus violating the constitution, so the provisions need to go and be stricken from HERA.

In court, the SCOTUS remanded the case to the 5th circuit and the 5th circuit remanded it to the district court, the district court thus now must decide how to make this legally possible (spoiler alert it is not possible) if the provision is severed from HERA the FHFA is executive and can no longer be an independent agency, if it is modified to "at-will" the POTUS is the head of FHFA and the agency again cannot be an independent agency

so why does this independent matter?
Independent agencies help the POTUS, but in order to be independent with executive power it can only be headed by a board of governors, currently the FHFA, in law is headed by a board 44 U.S.C. § 3502 (5), and also is headed by a single director 4512(a), this last provision is declared unconstitutional and the sole provision remaining is now 3502.
the FHFA is controlled by HERA, it says that the director of the FHFA can make assessments to run the FHFA, but officially the FHFA is now headed by the president,(as he can fire the director of the FHFA) but the president does not have the power to makes assessments that power belongs solely to congress in the appropriation act

so now we landed in the district court, Judge Atlas retired and it is unknown who will replace her at this moment, but for now lets still call it Judge Atlas, he does not have the power to rule unconstitutional things, when judges are sworn in they made an oath to uphold the law (28 U.S. Code § 453) and that is what we are about to see, if anything is done to the provision or deleted or altered the FHFA can no longer be independent as a consequence as the POTUS is in control of the agency, remember the Otting flip flop when they figured out it would mean the end of the FHFA

What is your take on this:
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV3.pdf