Collins v. Yellen
2021 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Collins v. Yellen?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___ (2021),[note 1] was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The case follows on the Court's prior ruling in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,[1] which found that the establishing structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers; the FHFA shares a similar structure as the CFPB. The case extends the legal challenge to the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2008.
Collins v. Yellen | |
---|---|
Argued December 9, 2020 Decided June 23, 2021 | |
Full case name | Patrick J. Collins, et al. v. Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.; Janet L. Yellen, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. v. Patrick J. Collins, et al. |
Docket nos. | 19-422 19-563 |
Citations | 594 U.S. ___ (more) |
Case history | |
Prior | |
Holding | |
1. The shareholders’ statutory claim must be dismissed. The "anti-injunction clause" of the Recovery Act provides that unless review is
specifically authorized by one of its provisions or is requested by the Director, "no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator or a receiver." 2. The Recovery Act’s restriction on the President’s power to remove the FHFA Director, 12 U.S.C. §4512(b)(2), is unconstitutional. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett; Breyer, Kagan (all but Part III–B); Gorsuch (all but Part III–C); Sotomayor (Parts I, II, and III–C) |
Concurrence | Thomas |
Concurrence | Gorsuch (in part) |
Concurrence | Kagan (in part and in the judgment), joined by Breyer, Sotomayor (Part II) |
Concur/dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Breyer |
In a two-part decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the restriction on removal of the FHFA director by the President was unconstitutional in light of Seila Law, and secondly, dismissed the lawsuit brought against the FHFA by shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the takeover of these firms was an established power of the agency under terms of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.