By Jessica Gresko
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the structure of the agency that oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac violates separation of powers principles in the Constitution.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the president would nominate a new head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency after the Supreme Court decision, but she did not give a timeline.
The justices sent the case involving FHFA, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and was created during the 2008 financial crisis, back to a lower court for additional proceedings.
Shareholders of the two companies had argued that the FHFA’s structure was unconstitutional and that the justices should set aside a 2012 agreement under which the companies have paid the government billions. That money is compensation for the taxpayer bailout that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received following the 2008 financial crisis.
The justices didn’t go that far in their decision.
The “FHFA’s structure violates the separation of powers, and we remand for further proceedings to determine what remedy, if any, the shareholders are entitled to receive on their constitutional claim,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a majority of the court.
The case is in many ways similar to one the justices decided last year involving the FHFA’s companion agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is the government’s consumer watchdog agency. It was created by Congress in response to the same financial crisis.
In the case involving the bureau, the court struck down restrictions Congress imposed that said the president could only fire the bureau’s director for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Just as the bureau’s leader was, the director of the FHFA is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. In the FHFA’s case, the director was only removable by the president “for cause.”
The two consolidated cases the court ruled in are Collins v. Yellen, 19-422, and Yellen v. Collins, 19-563.
- Posted June 24, 2021
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Supreme Court: Mortgage overseer structure unconstitutional
headlines Detroit
- Lawsuits between prediction markets and states now spans nearly half of U.S.
- Supreme Court reform gathers momentum
- Narrow Mail-in Voting Ruling by Supreme Court Doesn’t Address Constitutionality of Trump’s Executive Order
- ABA joins NASS and to mobilize lawyers as poll workers for midterm elections
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Legal writers can benefit from a Zen writing approach and some Hemingway—and so can their readers
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Why the next competitive advantage in the AI era is partnership, not just technology
- Things I wish my spouse had told me before they died
- Troutman Pepper Locke associate files discrimination lawsuit against firm
- Jay-Z’s extortion suit against lawyer in withdrawn rape case faces skepticism from judge




