Plain-English summary
Court partially allows, partially rejects challenges to FHFA conservatorship actions in Collins v. Yellen
The Supreme Court issued a mixed decision in Collins v. Yellen, resolving who can sue over actions by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and what remedies are available. The Court affirmed that some claims are barred by the agency's statutory protections but allowed other claims to proceed and remanded parts of the case to lower courts.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies when private parties can sue the FHFA (a powerful federal regulator acting as conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and what remedies courts may provide. That affects the limits of court oversight over federal conservatorships and the reach of statutory protections Congress wrote for the FHFA, with implications for government control of financial companies and for people and entities harmed by those actions.
Who may feel it
- Borrowers, homeowners, and investors in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
- Financial institutions and mortgage market participants
- Federal agencies and regulators serving as conservators or receivers
- Anyone seeking to sue the FHFA or challenge conservatorship-related agreements
Key questions
- Does the anti-injunction clause (12 U.S.C. §4617(f)) prevent federal courts from setting aside the Treasury’s Third Amendment to agreements with FHFA?