Hi Blushing green - The ruling opinion is clearly stated in the beginning and at the end:
The net worth sweep remains intact and the FHFA continues on as before, with all previous actions accepted as made, with the exception that the removal for cause clause is to be severed.
Willetts's dissent in part reflects closely the opinion of the Plaintiffs and their APA claims.
A dissenting opinion does not offer legal relief, binding precedent or law. In other cases before a court, a dissenting opinion may be used to throw light upon the arguments and citations found in the majority opinion and is often used to bolster a legal counter argument being made. Even so, this dissenting opinion, punctuated with language indicating strongly felt considerations of the legal and de facto conditions of the GSEs and Plaintiffs, may or may not have impact on later cases.
The majority decided to maintain the existing legal status quo and threw a bone to those concerned with FHFA's constitutionality.