Replies to post #587061 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[obiterdictum]

I understand that the ideal outcome would be for SCOTUS to deny cert on the question of the constitutionality of the NWS and to grant cert on the question of the remedy for the improper "director arrangement", but my own personal logic was to ask why would the court grant cert on one question and deny cert on the other. I guess I'd expect a "While we're here ..." approach. I would love for you to tell me that my logic is incorrect.

The constitutionality of the NWS is not a question presented by either party.

The questions presented concern the two different decisions made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit en banc concerning Collins et. al.'s appeal.

Collins seeks, as a prevailing party, to revisit the 5th Circuit en banc decision on Count IV and gain a retrospective remedy of setting aside the NWS.

Mnuchin et al. are making an interlocutory appeal in seeking to reverse the Fifth Circuit en banc's reverse and remand of Count I still pending in Judge Atlas' court. That is, Mnuchin et. al. seek to cut off the future possibility that Judge Atlas may/will rule for the Plaintiffs as instructed by the Fifth Circuit.

See: For Counts see p. 13 http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-20364-CV2.pdf

Perhaps, a reconsideration of the elements in logic (cert questions) would be useful.

Below are the questions given in the petitions for writs of certiorari.

Patrick J. Collins, et al., Petitioners v. Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
1. Whether FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers; and

2. Whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-563/120380/20191025201313249_Mnuchin%20FINAL.pdf

Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Petitioners v. Patrick J. Collins, et al.
1. Whether the statute’s anti-injunction clause, which precludes courts from taking any action that would “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator,” 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment.

2. Whether the statute’s succession clause—under which FHFA, as conservator, inherits the shareholders’ rights to bring derivative actions on behalf of the enterprises—precludes the shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-563/120380/20191025201313249_Mnuchin%20FINAL.pdf