What we have here is regulatory law established by Congress (HERA 2008) that establishes and gives limited authority, powers and purposes to an independent government agency (FHFA) to place corporate entities into conservatorships or receiverships. The law also gives the US Treasury a temporary and limited authority to engage in financial relations and transaction with the FHFA and corporations in conservatorships. The statutes of the law do not give unlimited powers to these government agencies. These agencies have the responsibility to interpret the statutes and to implement the regulatory statues concerned with the conservatorships and receiverships.
When courts are presented with complaints, claims and challenges to agency decisions and implementation of regulatory statues, the courts must consider to what degree they will defer to an agency's reading and interpretation of the law, or sustain, in part or as a whole, the claims of plaintiffs and/or come to read and interpret the law, more or less, from the courts' points of view. All of this becomes a complex legal process when there is room for arguing for different interpretations of the statutes, reviewing the decisions, evidence and actions taken under those interpretations as being within the law or in violation of the governing law, and claiming or denying damages and prayers of relief.
If Article VI Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) was a perpetual sledgehammer able to be unilaterally wielded at anytime in anyplace to pound federal law into state law, what need would their be for courts, attorneys, briefings, discovery, oral arguments, appeals and the like? Even so, there are a wide range of issues about federal preemption.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
