Careful with that, because there's a chance SCOTUS also fucks us by giving just a declaratory judgment and no remedy. While this isn't super likely, it's still possible.
IMO the ruling in Seila was sorta bullshit to begin with, because making a director of an independent agency removable at will necessarily makes that agency dependent.
SCOTUS painted themselves into a corner with this Seila, and I think they're now trying to wriggle themselves out of it, at least in part because applying Seila's ruling to other agencies with similar structures would create a litigation nightmare. If they don't want to be hearing cases about unconstitutional structures and directors until the end of time, they'll have to do some mental gymnastics on how Seila doesn't apply.
Listening to oral arguments, sounds like justices think this should be a takings case. I think that case has better odds than this one, but it would sure be nice to get a win. I do think SCOTUS is conscious of the abuse of power here. Ruling in gov's favor sets an even worse precedent that permits future abuses in bailouts.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
