The Rop Plaintiffs filed their opening brief in the Sixth Circuit yesterday, and a copy’s attached to this e-mail message. The Rop Plaintiffs tell the panel the Supreme Court has already held that the restriction on the President’s ability to remove the FHFA director was unconstitutional. So the only remaining question is whether that restriction harmed Plaintiffs by preventing the President from removing the FHFA director and implementing his policy of restoring the shareholders’ value. The Supreme Court held that a public statement from the President expressing his displeasure with the FHFA director and explaining that the restriction prevented him from removing the director from office would “clearly” show that restriction harmed the shareholders. Former President Trump has issued just such a statement — explaining that, were it not for the removal restriction, he would have removed the FHFA director and restored the shareholders’ value. Under Collins, the Rop Plaintiffs contend, shareholders are entitled to a remedy.
