JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Shareholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), which is the companies’ conservator, and the Treasury Department. This lawsuit, and many others like it, seeks to nullify an agreement between FHFA and Treasury that “secured unlimited funding for Fannie and Freddie from Treasury in exchange for almost all of Fannie’s and Freddie’s future profits.” Rop v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency, 485 F. Supp. 3d 900, 910 (W.D. Mich. 2020). Shareholders allege that this agreement, known as the third amendment, was authorized by a government official—the Acting Director of FHFA—who was serving in violation of the Appointments Clause. Shareholders also claim that they are entitled to retrospective relief because the Supreme Court held in Collins v. Yellen, 141 S. Ct. 1761 (2021), that FHFA’s enabling statute contained an unconstitutional removal restriction. The district court dismissed shareholders’ complaint, finding that the Appointments Clause claim presented a nonjusticiable political question and that the removal restriction claim was not connected to shareholders’ alleged injuries. We reverse and consider the Appointments Clause claim on the merits, holding that the Acting Director was not serving in violation of the Constitution when he signed the third amendment. We remand to the district court to determine whether, considering Collins, the unconstitutional removal restriction inflicted harm on shareholders.