Collins v. Yellen

Collins v. Yellen
Collins v. Yellen
	Supreme Court of the United States
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	Collins v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 254 F. Supp. 3d 841 (S.D. Tex. 2017); Affirmed in part, reversed in part sub nom. Collins v. Mnuchin, 896 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 2018); On rehearing en banc, 938 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2019); Cert. granted, 141 S.Ct. 193 (2020);
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
	Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer ; Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor ; Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch ; Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
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

Last updated September 01, 2024

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.

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.

Background

Part of the contributing factors to the subprime mortgage crisis from 2007 to 2010 was the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for-profit government sponsored enterprises (GSE) that purchase mortgages and backed almost half of the mortgages in the United States. Analysis had found that the two GSEs had purchased a number of risky mortgages, those offered at below the prime interest rate as to encourage home ownership, during the housing market peak in 2005 and 2006 and represented a large risk should they fail. At the start of the crisis, the rationalization of the number of these low-interest mortgages disrupted the banking system, causing some larger banks to go into bankruptcy or seek means to avoid this, which disrupted the credit system and further exacerbated the crisis and caused a recession.^[2]

Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 ^[3] in July of that year to try to stave off the effects of the recession. Among the law's goals included the formation of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), merging the existing Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB) and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO). The new FHFA was run by a single Director, with James B. Lockhart III, the prior Director of OFHEO, named to the initial position. In September 2008, Lockhart issued an order to bring in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under FHFA's authority for the purposes of stabilizing both GSEs using funds allocated by Congress as a means to alleviate the mortgage crisis.^[2]

As part of this takeover, once the mortgage crisis was subdued in 2012, the FHFA routed the ongoing profits earned by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the Treasury Department on the basis that these funds were needed to offset the taxpayers' costs of the government's intervention to resolve the crisis. The decision also prevents both GSEs from using Treasury funds to pay their shareholders. Shareholders of both companies challenged the government's actions, stating that these decisions prevent the company from building capital and is excessive governmental overreach.^[4]

As the case progressed, the Supreme Court heard Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau .^[1] In this case, the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was called into question. Like FHFA, the CFPB was formed by legislation passed by Congress, and specified that it was to be overseen by a single Director that can only be removed from office "for cause" and did not give the option for the President to remove the person "at will". The Supreme Court agreed that this structure was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. The Supreme Court ruled that the Director position of CFPB must be also removable by will, but otherwise did not challenge the function of the CFPB since they had found its purpose to be severable from the implementation of the Director position.^[5]

Seila Law progressed through lower courts at the same time as Collins. Seila Law had been heard in the Ninth Circuit, which had ruled that the structure of the CFPB was constitutional.^[6]Collins was heard in the Fifth Circuit, which ruled both on its initial three-judge panel^[7] and at an en banc hearing^[8] that the FHFB was unconstitutional.

Both sides of Collins petitioned to the Supreme Court in 2019 to hear the case; the shareholders sought to resolve the split in the Circuit Courts as well as to question whether any decisions – including the profit taking decision 2012 – made under the unconstitutional structure should be reversed, while the government challenged the Fifth Circuit's ruling. Following the ruling in Seila Law issued in June 2020, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court

Oral hearings for the case were held on December 9, 2020.^[4]

The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 23, 2021. It ruled on two areas which affirmed, reversed, and vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision in parts and remanded the case for further review. On the subject of the constitutionality of the FHFA director, the Court ruled 7–2 to uphold the Fifth Circuit's decision that, as with Seila Law and the CFPB, the inability for the President to terminate the director of FHFA beyond "for cause" was unconstitutional. Related to the standing of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders, the Court was unanimous in that the FHFA's actions in taking over the GSEs was outlined by congressional authority in the Recovery Act of 2008, along with an "anti-injunction clause," and, thus, the lower courts should not have allowed their case to proceed.^[9]

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion to which all Justices had joined in full or in part. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Elena Kagan wrote concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, related to the FHFA directorship, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Impact

On the day of the decision, President Joe Biden moved forward with replacing FHFA director, Mark A. Calabria, who had been appointed under Donald Trump, "with an appointee who reflects the Administration's values".^[10]

Notes

↑ The case was titled Collins v. Mnuchin until Janet Yellen replaced Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.

Related Research Articles

The Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA), or Ginnie Mae, is a government-owned corporation of the United States Federal Government within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It was founded in 1968 and works to expand affordable housing by guaranteeing housing loans (mortgages) thereby lowering financing costs such as interest rates for those loans. It does that through guaranteeing to investors the on-time payment of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) even if homeowners default on the underlying mortgages and the homes are foreclosed upon.

The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a United States government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) and, since 1968, a publicly traded company. Founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal, the corporation's purpose is to expand the secondary mortgage market by securitizing mortgage loans in the form of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), allowing lenders to reinvest their assets into more lending and in effect increasing the number of lenders in the mortgage market by reducing the reliance on locally based savings and loan associations. Its brother organization is the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Franklin Raines</span> American businessman and federal executive

Franklin Delano Raines, also known as Frank Raines, is an American business executive. He is the former chairman and chief executive officer of the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, who served as White House budget director under President Bill Clinton. His role leading Fannie Mae has come under scrutiny. He has been called one of the "25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis" according to Time magazine.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), commonly known as Freddie Mac, is a publicly traded, government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. The FHLMC was created in 1970 to expand the secondary market for mortgages in the US. Along with its sister organization, the Federal National Mortgage Association, Freddie Mac buys mortgages, pools them, and sells them as a mortgage-backed security (MBS) to private investors on the open market. This secondary mortgage market increases the supply of money available for mortgage lending and increases the money available for new home purchases. The name "Freddie Mac" is a variant of the FHLMC initialism of the company's full name that was adopted officially for ease of identification.

The Federal Home Loan Banks are 11 U.S. government-sponsored banks that provide liquidity to financial institutions to support housing finance and community investment.

In the United States, a conforming loan is a mortgage loan that both meets the underwriting guidelines of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that does not exceed the conforming loan limit. The most well-known guideline is the size of the loan, which for 2024 was generally limited to $766,550 for one-unit single family homes in the continental US. Other guidelines include borrower's loan-to-value ratio, debt-to-income ratio, credit score and history, documentation requirements, etc.

In the United States, a jumbo mortgage is a mortgage loan that may have high credit quality, but is in an amount above conventional conforming loan limits. This standard is set by the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and sets the limit on the maximum value of any individual mortgage they will purchase from a lender. Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) are large agencies that purchase the bulk of U.S. residential mortgages from banks and other lenders, allowing them to free up liquidity to lend more mortgages. When FNMA and FHLMC limits don't cover the full loan amount, the loan is referred to as a "jumbo mortgage". Traditionally, the interest rates on jumbo mortgages are higher than for conforming mortgages, however with GSE fees increasing, Jumbo loans have recently seen lower interest rates than conforming loans.

Collateral Protection Insurance, or CPI, insures property held as collateral for loans made by lending institutions. CPI, also known as force-placed insurance and lender placed insurance, may be classified as single-interest insurance if it protects the interest of the lender, a single party, or as dual-interest insurance coverage if it protects the interest of both the lender and the borrower.

The United States Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 was designed primarily to address the subprime mortgage crisis. It authorized the Federal Housing Administration to guarantee up to $300 billion in new 30-year fixed rate mortgages for subprime borrowers if lenders wrote down principal loan balances to 90 percent of current appraisal value. It was intended to restore confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by strengthening regulations and injecting capital into the two large U.S. suppliers of mortgage funding. States are authorized to refinance subprime loans using mortgage revenue bonds. Enactment of the Act led to the government conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is an independent federal agency in the United States created as the successor regulatory agency of the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB), the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development government-sponsored enterprise mission team, absorbing the powers and regulatory authority of both entities, with expanded legal and regulatory authority, including the ability to place government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) into receivership or conservatorship.

In September 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) announced that it would take over the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. Both government-sponsored enterprises, which finance home mortgages in the United States by issuing bonds, had become illiquid as the market for those bonds collapsed in the subprime mortgage crisis. The FHFA established conservatorships in which each enterprise's management works under the FHFA's direction to reduce losses and to develop a new operating structure that will allow a return to self-management.

James B. Lockhart III is an American U.S. Navy officer, business executive, and, since September 2009, Vice Chairman of WL Ross & Co, which manages $9 billion of private equity investments, a hedge fund and a Mortgage Recovery Fund. It is a subsidiary of Invesco, a Fortune 500 investment management firm. He coordinates WL Ross's investments in financial services firms and mortgages. Lockhart serves co-chairs the Bipartisan Policy Center's Commission on Retirement Security and Personal Savings.

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis covers the United States government policies and its impact on the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2009. The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was a set of events and conditions that led to the 2007–2008 financial crisis and subsequent recession. It was characterized by a rise in subprime mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, and the resulting decline of securities backed by said mortgages. Several major financial institutions collapsed in September 2008, with significant disruption in the flow of credit to businesses and consumers and the onset of a severe global recession.

Loan modification is the systematic alteration of mortgage loan agreements that help those having problems making the payments by reducing interest rates, monthly payments or principal balances. Lending institutions could make one or more of these changes to relieve financial pressure on borrowers to prevent the condition of foreclosure. Loan modifications have been practiced in the United States since the 1930s. During the Great Depression, loan modification programs took place at the state level in an effort to reduce levels of loan foreclosures.

Josephine Laura Staton is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is an independent agency of the United States government responsible for consumer protection in the financial sector. CFPB's jurisdiction includes banks, credit unions, securities firms, payday lenders, mortgage-servicing operations, foreclosure relief services, debt collectors, for-profit colleges, and other financial companies operating in the United States. Since its founding, the CFPB has used technology tools to monitor how financial entities used social media and algorithms to target consumers.

People of the State of California v. Federal Housing Finance Agency was a California state case in which several California-based plaintiffs filed suit against the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) for creating a lending rule that impeded the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program, a program in which property owners repay energy-related property improvements gradually over time as an addition to their property tax.

The Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014 is a bill that would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs. The bill would require that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees be recognized in the federal budget on a fair-value basis using guidelines set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The bill would also require the federal budget to reflect the net impact of programs administered by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The changes made by the bill would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were counted on the budget instead of considered separately and would mean that the debt of those two programs would be included in the national debt. These programs themselves would not be changed, but how they are accounted for in the United States federal budget would be. The goal of the bill is to improve the accuracy of how some programs are accounted for in the federal budget.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which determined that the 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. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the president of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass'n of America, Ltd., 601 U.S. 416 (2024), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is allocated from the Federal Treasury budget rather that through Congressional appropriations, is constitutional under the Appropriations Clause.

References

1 2 Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ,No. 19-7 , 591 U.S. ___(2020).
1 2 "Credit and blame: A must-read on the origins of the crisis". The Economist. September 11, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2008.
↑ Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States) 110–289 (text) (PDF) , H.R. 3221 , 122 Stat. 2654 , enacted July 30, 2008.
1 2 Ackerman, Andrew; Kendall, Brent (December 9, 2020). "Supreme Court Weighs U.S. Profit Sweep at Fannie, Freddie". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved December 9, 2020.
↑ Mangan, Dan; Higgens, Tucker (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing but backs president's ability to fire director". CNBC . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.
↑ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 923F.3d680 ( 9th Cir. 2019).
↑ Collins v. Mnuchin, 896F.3d640 ( 5th Cir. 2018).
↑ Collins v. Mnuchin, 938F.3d553 ( 5th Cir. 2019).
↑ "U.S. Supreme Court bolsters presidential power over housing finance agency". CNBC . June 23, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2021.
↑ Mattingly, Phil; de Vogue, Ariane; Stracqualursi, Veronica (June 23, 2021). "White House to replace Federal Housing Finance Agency director following Supreme Court decision". CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2021.

External links

Text of Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. ___(2021) is available from: Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] The case was titled Collins v. Mnuchin until Janet Yellen replaced Steven Mnuchin as Secretary of the Treasury.

[Seila-2] 1 2 Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ,No. 19-7 , 591 U.S. ___(2020).

[Economist-Credit_Blame-2008-09-11-3] 1 2 "Credit and blame: A must-read on the origins of the crisis". The Economist. September 11, 2008. Retrieved September 11, 2008.

[4] Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States) 110–289 (text) (PDF) , H.R. 3221 , 122 Stat. 2654 , enacted July 30, 2008.

[wsj_oral-5] 1 2 Ackerman, Andrew; Kendall, Brent (December 9, 2020). "Supreme Court Weighs U.S. Profit Sweep at Fannie, Freddie". The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved December 9, 2020.

[6] Mangan, Dan; Higgens, Tucker (June 29, 2020). "Supreme Court leaves consumer regulator standing but backs president's ability to fire director". CNBC . Archived from the original on June 29, 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020.

[7] Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Seila Law LLC, 923F.3d680 ( 9th Cir. 2019).

[8] Collins v. Mnuchin, 896F.3d640 ( 5th Cir. 2018).

[9] Collins v. Mnuchin, 938F.3d553 ( 5th Cir. 2019).

[10] "U.S. Supreme Court bolsters presidential power over housing finance agency". CNBC . June 23, 2021. Retrieved June 23, 2021.

[11] Mattingly, Phil; de Vogue, Ariane; Stracqualursi, Veronica (June 23, 2021). "White House to replace Federal Housing Finance Agency director following Supreme Court decision". CNN . Retrieved June 23, 2021.

[note 1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]