not sure how that would look. the relief in arthrex was anodyne in that the Director now can review an inter-party patent adjudication....or it can decline review. so it is a process ruling more than a money at stake ruling. not sure what a ruling would look like in collins that involved backward relief and didnt involve money.
if following Lucia, scotus would have ordered new hearing. in the event it just ordered a review of the existing hearing, but that makes sense given the form of prospective relief it ordered
In Arthrex, Patent Office has no financial stake in the dispute. So the Director can review the ruling.
In Collins, FHFA Director cannot let gov to pay billions to plaintiffs. He, even if constitutional, cannot review objectively the NWS validity . Conflict of interests. The remedy must consider this. Simple voiding is proper. in oral argument, Gorsuch asked this question: void ab initio the whole contract?
I must say Gorsuch is rigorous and intelligent. His approach solves the problem completely. Otherwise, Washington Federal will ask the question later.
How unusual is it that SCOTUS skipped us over yesterday? Does doing so suggest they're awaiting input, like, worst case, Yellen's addressing situation in Sept?
Right, that would be nice, but why not yesterday? I've been watching the case count for over a month and SCOTUS has stuck to case order. Surely there's some reason why it skipped little old us.
Christian, Highly disappointing and costly decision. What are your thoughts on the way forward?
curious how a decision might look that would neither hurt FHFA/Treasury or plantiffs, if that's an option.
not sure how that would look. the relief in arthrex was anodyne in that the Director now can review an inter-party patent adjudication....or it can decline review. so it is a process ruling more than a money at stake ruling. not sure what a ruling would look like in collins that involved backward relief and didnt involve money.
They always try to cut the baby in half whenever possible.
I don't think it is a halfway measure. It is voiding current ruling and a new review.
if following Lucia, scotus would have ordered new hearing. in the event it just ordered a review of the existing hearing, but that makes sense given the form of prospective relief it ordered
In Arthrex, Patent Office has no financial stake in the dispute. So the Director can review the ruling.
In Collins, FHFA Director cannot let gov to pay billions to plaintiffs. He, even if constitutional, cannot review objectively the NWS validity . Conflict of interests. The remedy must consider this. Simple voiding is proper. in oral argument, Gorsuch asked this question: void ab initio the whole contract?
I must say Gorsuch is rigorous and intelligent. His approach solves the problem completely. Otherwise, Washington Federal will ask the question later.
How unusual is it that SCOTUS skipped us over yesterday? Does doing so suggest they're awaiting input, like, worst case, Yellen's addressing situation in Sept?
I expect Collins to be decided before July 4.
Right, that would be nice, but why not yesterday? I've been watching the case count for over a month and SCOTUS has stuck to case order. Surely there's some reason why it skipped little old us.
Can you speculate on what impact a positive ruling on Collins might have on the more broad Washington Federal case?
Wash Fed is challenging the imposition of the conservatorship. different set of facts than the NWS. no real legal effect imo