Home / Daily Dose / Appeals Court Finds FHFA Structure Unconstitutional
Print This Post Print This Post

Appeals Court Finds FHFA Structure Unconstitutional

FHFAThe Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals recently concluded that the leadership structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) was unconstitutional.

The three-member panel of judges led by Chief Judge Carl Stewart was hearing a case filed by three shareholders of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against the FHFA, its Director as well as the Treasury and its Secretary.

The shareholders contended that the Treasury and the FHFA exceeded their statutory authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA) of 2008 and challenged an agreement between the FHFA as conservator to Fannie and Freddie and the Treasury Department.

Under the agreement in question, the shareholders claimed that the Treasury provided billions of taxpayer dollars in capital. In exchange, the GSEs were required to pay the Treasury quarterly dividends equal to their entire net worth in an exchange known as the “net worth sweep.” The shareholders were unhappy with the bailout out terms of this agreement and filed a suit arguing that the agreement rendered their shares valueless.

They also contended that the agreement was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) (“APA”), while claiming that the FHFA was unconstitutionally structured because it was headed by a single Director, “removable only for cause, does not depend on congressional appropriations, and evades meaningful judicial review.”

After the hearing, the three-member bench dismissed the shareholders’ statutory claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the FHFA and Treasury on the constitutional claim. “Because we find that the FHFA acted within its statutory authority by adopting the net worth sweep, we hold that the Shareholders’ APA claims are barred by § 4617(f),” the judges ruled. “But we also find that the FHFA is unconstitutionally structured and violates the separation of powers. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.”

A recent ruling by a New York Judge had also upheld a previous ruling that said the Bureau of Financial Protection (BCFP) was unconstitutional for the same reason.

Read the detailed ruling and background of the case here.

Learn More about recent BCFP rulings:

CFPB vs. PHH Dismissed: RESPA Enforcement Implications

CFPB vs. PHH—An Unexpected Conclusion

About Author: Radhika Ojha

Radhika Ojha is an independent writer and copy-editor, and a reporter for DS News. She is a graduate of the University of Pune, India, where she received her B.A. in Commerce with a concentration in Accounting and Marketing and an M.A. in Mass Communication. Upon completion of her masters degree, Ojha worked at a national English daily publication in India (The Indian Express) where she was a staff writer in the cultural and arts features section. Ojha, also worked as Principal Correspondent at HT Media Ltd and at Honeywell as an executive in corporate communications. She and her husband currently reside in Houston, Texas.

Check Also

Federal Reserve Holds Rates Steady Moving Into the New Year

The Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee again chose that no action is better than changing rates as the economy begins to stabilize.