Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

"As Collins reaffirmed, this Court applies the vacatur remedy to
the “exercise of power that [a government] actor did
not lawfully possess.” 141 S. Ct. at 1788. And
because the Appropriations Clause is “‘a restriction
upon the disbursing authority of the Executive
department,’” it functions as “a restraint” on the
power possessed by “Executive Branch officers.”
Dep’t of Navy, 665 F.3d at 1347 (quoting Cincinnati
Soap, 301 U.S. at 321). Since “the Bureau lacked
any other means to promulgate the rule” “without its
unconstitutional funding,” Pet.App. 44a, it did not
lawfully possess the power to do so."

Contrary to the Bureau’s contentions, it does not
matter if the agency was statutorily “authorized” to
promulgate the Rule; whether it would have promulgated the Rule if “funded by ‘valid’
appropriations”; or that the Rule’s vacatur will “not
… undo the [agency’s] expenditures” or “restore any
funds to the federal fisc.” Pet. 25-27. The analogous
points could be made in cases challenging actions by
improperly appointed officers, yet vacatur is the
standard remedy in that context. Collins, 141 S. Ct.
at 1788 (citing Lucia v. SEC, 138 S. Ct. 2044, 2055
(2018)); see Cross-Pet. 17-18. Vacatur likewise is the
proper remedy for a regulation promulgated in
violation of the Appropriations Clause. Pet.App. 45a;
All American, 33 F.4th at 242."