"The Supreme Court said that the NWS was a valid act of FHFA as conservator"
Yes, and maybe I'm not reading far enough into it? By law, FHFA was not restricted from implementing the 3rd Amendment agreement with Treasury. I see that the same as saying "the government has the legal ability to take your house." They didn't really get into the specifics of what happens when the government does what it was allowed to do via statute, just that it was allowed by statute.
Just because it is not illegal for the FHFA or any government agency to take a specific action does not mean there will be no remedies to any impacted parties. The recent jury verdict being the first example we've seen.
"Mark Calabria actually tried this, and he was shot down by Treasury and the DOJ. The DOJ told him that the government speaks with one voice and quashed his bid to argue against Treasury in the Collins case."
This is exactly the type of "bad faith" dealings I think will be less frequent. There can't be "one voice" for both sides of a two-party contract. The FHFA and the Treasury should be (and should have always been) negotiating at arm's length with the goal of fulfilling their duties under HERA (stabilize secondary market and mitigate taxpayer risk via temporary conservatorship to return GSEs to sound and solvent condition). Clearly they have not done this and much of the documentation that would prove this is still sealed and/or inadmissible in court.
The FHFA should not be a puppet for the Treasury, and there is now an example for calling out bad-faith negotiations where it's painfully obvious the FHFA is doing what is in the best interest of the Treasury, and not necessarily the regulated entities to emerge from conservatorship.
