Sign Up

NCLA Site Search

Amicus Briefs

Collins v. Yellen

CASE SUMMARY

The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is the federal agency that regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored enterprises that provide liquidity to the national mortgage market by buying up home loans from banks and other mortgage lenders across the country.

FHFA essentially nationalized those two financial services companies when, in its role as their conservator, it agreed that all future corporate profits should be paid to the U.S. Treasury. The Petitioners, shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, objected to the companies’ nationalization, arguing (among other things) that FHFA’s unconstitutional structure made it not authorized to act.

In September 2020, NCLA filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court taking aim at the unconstitutional structure of FHFA. NCLA asked that the Court to set aside the final agency action FHFA took against Petitioners while it was unconstitutionally structured and grant Petitioners meaningful relief.

In a win for NCLA, on June 23, 2021, a divided Supreme Court held that the structure of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 violated the separation of powers. The law ran afoul of the Constitution by restricting the President’s power to remove the Director of FHFA.

The victory vindicated separation-of-powers principles and protected Americans’ right to a republican form of government, which unaccountable independent agencies thwart.

OUR TEAM

Mark Chenoweth
President and Chief Legal Officer

RELEVANT MATERIALS

NCLA FILINGS

Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court

June 23, 2021 | Read More

Brief of the New Civil Liberties Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners

September 23, 2020 | Read More

PRESS RELEASES

In Another NCLA Amicus Win, Supreme Court Holds FHFA’s Leadership Structure Unconstitutional

June 23, 2021 | Read More

NCLA Brief Asks High Court to Nullify Actions by Constitutionally Defective Federal Housing Agency

September 23, 2020 | Read More

IN THE MEDIA

The Hamburger Court

The New York Sun

February 8, 2023

High Court Powers Up Fannie-Freddie Case Hinged on Presidential Powers

Courthouse News Service

February 8, 2023

RELATED CASES
  • Adir International v. Starr Indemnity and Liability Company

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: California

    View Case
  • American Home Furnishings Alliance, et al. v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 30, 2023

    Agencies: Consumer Product Safety Commission

    View Case
  • American Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Walther, Dir., and Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

    View Case
  • American Hospital Association, et al. v. Xavier Becerra, et al.

    Judicial Deference

    Deference doctrines require judges to defer to an administrative agency’s fact finding, or its interpretation of statutes and regulations. Thus, judges surrender their independent judgment and, where the government is a party, must exhibit systematic bias in the government’s favor, which denies due process of law to the other litigant.

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed - June 15, 2022

    Agencies: Department of Health and Human Services

    View Case
  • American Securities Association and Citadel Securities LLC v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Administrative Speech Controls

    The Administrative State tries to squelch speech, especially through licensing, speech bans, and speech mandates. Licensing requires one to get the government’s permission prior to speaking. Nothing was more clearly forbidden by the First Amendment than prior restraints on speech, but such controls are now commonplace.

    Unreasonable Searches

    The Fourth Amendment forbids warrantless searches and seizures of information, yet the Administrative State violates this right to privacy through administrative subpoenas and warrants, automated information collection devices, civil investigative demands, and “voluntary” requests for information.

    Conditions on Spending

    Administrative agencies use unconstitutional conditions on spending to regulate the conduct of grantees. Rather than rule through law, the government simply purchases submission.

    Case Active - February 15, 2024

    Agencies: Securities and Exchange Commission

    View Case
  • AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC and FTC v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC

    Due Process Violations

    The due process of law guarantees a right to be held to account only through the processes of an impartial court—something administrative tribunals violate every day.

    Scope of Authority / Nondelegation

    The structure of the Constitution allows only Congress to legislate, only the Executive to enforce laws, and only the Judiciary to decide cases. But the Administrative State evades the Constitution’s avenues of governance when executive agencies issue regulations without statutory authorization from Congress.

    Case Closed -

    Agencies: Federal Trade Commission

    View Case

SHARE THIS CASE

Enter your email address above to be notified whenever we post a new document to this case.