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

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.

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).