Replies to post #740724 on Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[Robert from yahoo bd]

Ahhh yes, the whole frickin reason we are challenging this gross federal agency overreach:

C. The Third Amendment must be set aside because FHFA’s funding structure
violates the Appropriations Clause.


Defendants also fail to make a persuasive argument against awarding a meaningful remedy
for Plaintiffs’ Appropriations Clause claims. Defendants invoke the Supreme Court’s discussion
of the remedy for Plaintiffs’ removal claims, but removal claims are “remedially speaking,
unique.” All Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 43 (citing Collins, 141 S. Ct. at 1791-93 (Thomas, J.,
concurring)); see also id. at 1788 (majority opinion) (distinguishing removal claims from other
separation of powers claims for purposes of remedy). Unlike a violation of the President’s removal
power, an unconstitutional funding scheme strikes at the heart of an agency’s authority to act. An
agency with no lawful source of funding cannot act, and “the remedy, invalidation, follows directly
from the government actor’s lack of authority to take the challenged action in the first place.” All
Am. Check Cashing, 33 F.4th at 42; cf. Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579, 581–82 (1958)
(“Generally, judicial relief is available to one who has been injured by an act of a government
official which is in excess of his express or implied powers.”).