Reasoning: The majority opinion emphasized the Fed’s distinct structure and historical tradition. Justice Kagan’s dissent called this a “bespoke Federal Reserve exception” and challenged the logic, noting that independence foundations for the Fed are similar to other agencies that were not protected
Future Implications: The recent SCOTUS decision ensures the Federal Reserve remains off limits from direct presidential firing power, safeguarding its role in monetary policy even as other independent agencies lose statutory protections (even if that makes little sense) www.cnbc.com/2025/05/22/s...
The SCOTUS majority opinion distinguishes the Fed’s status from other agencies, reinforcing that its leaders cannot be fired except under terms set by Congress for cause or expiration of term. This carve-out ensures the Fed’s monetary policy decisions remain insulated from executive interference.
"According Trump, the "sufficient cause" is the allegation that has committed mortgage fraud.
Until they carve out a carve out for the black woman he’s firing? They’ve also shadow docket procedural ruled that the Executive’s firings stand until the merits are sorted out in court. So, though they did seem to carve out the Fed, I can see that same deferential pattern repeating.
Agree SCOTUS majority is entirely untrustworthy. ⚖️ SCOTUS unlikely to rule Presidential powers extend to hire/fire Federal Reserve Governors, but not the Chair—a carveout within a carveout? Here’s the latest by somebody at MSNBC who I hope knows far more than me … www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
Per that article’s analysis, and as you indicated prior, we may see this crooked court slither thusly:
Thanks for the follow Peace MBM
Gross. It’s all just so gross.