County of Sonoma v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that so long as a challenged action was “a lawful exercise of FHFA’s power as conservator . . . the courts have no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’–Appellees’ claims, and this case must be dismissed”
• stating that “the courts have no jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’-Appellees’ claims, and this case must be dismissed” if “the directive challenged . . . is a lawful exercise of FHFA’s power as conservator”
• finding that a directive not to buy certain assets is within the authority of the FHFA director but such - directives are issued under FHFA’s authority as a conservator not as rule-making decisions of a regulator
• “[T]he anti-judicial review provision is inapplicable when FHFA acts beyond the scope of its conservator power.”
• “[T]he anti-judicial review provision is inapplicable when FHFA acts beyond the scope of its conservator power.”
• “Analysis of any challenged action is necessary to determine whether the action falls within the broad, but not infinite, conservator authority.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).