Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

The Order list: "Petitions for Writs...granted", Navy posted it earlier today (Nice Tweet today, keep up the good work!).

Here's CFPB Petition:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-448/246429/20221114155607407_No.%20CFPB%20et%20al.%20v.%20CFSA%20et%20al.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the
statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB), 12 U.S.C. 5497, violates the
Appropriations Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, Cl. 7, and
in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the
CFPB was receiving such funding.

Here's Noel Francisco's Cross Petition for a Writ of Certerrori:


CROSS-PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
This case involves a challenge to the validity of a
single regulation promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB or Bureau). As
relevant here, the Rule prohibits a covered lender
from continuing to make preauthorized attempts to
withdraw loan repayments from a consumer’s bank
account after two consecutive attempts are denied for
insufficient funds. 82 Fed. Reg. 54,472, 54,877-79
(Nov. 17, 2017). Cross-Petitioners (the Lenders)
claimed that the Rule is unlawful on several
grounds, and the court of appeals vacated the Rule
on one ground after rejecting the others.
In No. 22-448, the Bureau has filed a certiorari
petition seeking review of the holding below that the
Rule should be vacated because the statute
authorizing the agency’s funding violates the
Appropriations Clause. This Court should deny that
petition for the reasons explained in the Lenders’
opposition brief.
If the Court grants the Bureau’s petition, however,
it should either grant this cross-petition or add to the
Board’s petition two antecedent questions that also
are presented by the judgment under review:
1. Whether the Rule should be vacated because it
was promulgated by Director Cordray while shielded
from removal by President Trump under a statutory
provision this Court later held is unconstitutional.
2. Whether the Rule should be vacated because
the prohibited conduct falls outside the statutory
definition of unfair or abusive conduct.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-448/246429/20221114155607407_No.%20CFPB%20et%20al.%20v.%20CFSA%20et%20al.pdf


THAT said, no question that the front and center issue here is the Appropriations Clause issue and REMEDY.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fannie-mae-releases-january-2023-210500758.html