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
- Department of Corrections disagrees with discrimination charge filed by Civil Rights
- Law firm releases list of the ‘Top 20 Most Dangerous Intersections in Michigan’ for 2025
- ABA amicus brief addresses confidentiality and privilege concerns in border searches of attorneys’ electronic devices
- Here’s what I’ve learned about how medical schools can improve community health
- Daily Briefs
headlines National
- Lindsay Clancy trial shows how hard it is to prove intent retroactively
- Is there a religious right to abortion? State supreme court will weigh in
- Harvey raises $550M in latest round of funding
- Vanderbilt law students will gain access to AI-powered deposition simulations
- Federal judges’ interns may accept stipends from law firms, ethics panel says
- Former lawyer who pulled gun on ex-wife in restaurant convicted of attempted murder




