Replies to post #684197 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

About Gorsuch, presumably if he writes the majority opinion then his views in the Arthrex dissent will be part of it.

Starting at the bottom of page 5 of Gorsuch's concurring-in-part/dissenting-in-part opinion (page 32 of the pdf):

In circumstances like these, I believe traditional remedial principles should be our guide. Early American courts did not presume a power to “sever” and excise portions of statutes in response to constitutional violations. Instead, when the application of a statute violated the Constitution, courts simply declined to enforce the statute in the case or controversy at hand.

My read here is that Gorsuch doesn't want any part of the law changed at all, just for the Supreme Court (and presumably by extension all lower courts) to simply refuse to enforce what it found unconstitutional. In the case of HERA's FHFA director removal clause, I think that would mean that the President really could fire the FHFA director at will, and if the director protests and says "but he can only fire me for cause!" in a lawsuit then the courts would just turn a blind eye.