In FHFA, there is no such ambiguity. The wording is "for cause," and based on Seila's hearings, the outcome seems pretty straightforward to me.
Unconstitutional structure, no severability; therefore, the whole FHFA needs to be stricken down. This is what Collins means by "issues with broader significance."
And note ---- based on what court decision anywhere do you think how FHFA acted (in your opinion) v consumer agency acted has a single drop of impact on the issue which is the singular CEO for cause
Excellent breakdown and analysis! It is amazing to me that they bonded both cases together for the SCOTUS review....how? It is not apples to apples legal situation comparison, so how can SCOTUS rule on either? It would seem to put the justices in a catch 22 situation. Really hoping this all comes to fruition as you have written and we see the light.