you want them writing an amici brief as a federal agency? can you give an example of a federal agency ever doing something like this contrary to the interest of the executive branch?
Replies
To be clear, I'm not a lawyer and don't have a legal strategy for the Fed. But I do have a lot of experience with the way they communicate, and right now their communications are saying "let's see what happens." If Fed independence is important, now is the time to defend it, clearly, to the public.
aug 29, 2025, 2:14 pm • 1 1 • view
All they're saying is "we're going to operate under the assumption she will receive her injunction and we won't oppose that injunction". Which seems pretty reasonable to me.
aug 29, 2025, 2:16 pm • 3 1 • view
Is it a federal agency or a public-private bank? The Supreme Court seems to think it's a public-private bank, borne of the heritage of the First and Second Banks of the United States.
aug 29, 2025, 2:00 pm • 0 0 • view
After direct attacks not seen in two generations the Fed chose not to discuss its independence at JHole last week. I think that shows the lengths they will go to keep this a congress/executive matter.
aug 29, 2025, 2:15 pm • 0 0 • view
Well they're also flying by the seat of their pants and playing Calvinball so I wouldn't use whatever standard they're using tbh
aug 29, 2025, 2:21 pm • 2 0 • view
Nicholas Biddle wouldn't have put up with this crap.
aug 29, 2025, 2:22 pm • 2 0 • view
I...don't think the guy who died in penury as fraud lawsuits mounted is the example you want to point Jerome Powell toward.
aug 29, 2025, 2:24 pm • 2 0 • view
(It was a joke. Nicholas Biddle went to war and clearly lost.)
aug 29, 2025, 2:25 pm • 2 0 • view
amicus not amici* plurals amiright
aug 29, 2025, 1:55 pm • 4 0 • view
No, they have to file a response as a party to the case. And as they acknowledge in that filing, they have the ability to litigate independently from DOJ. Instead, they have decided to show up and take no position on the merits. bsky.app/profile/grah...
aug 29, 2025, 1:58 pm • 4 0 • view
I hope you can see the irony in arguing the Fed should not litigate independently in a case *about central bank independence.*
aug 29, 2025, 2:06 pm • 2 0 • view
But they can litigate independently viz-a-viz Cook's claim, you're asking them for something differemt.
aug 29, 2025, 2:10 pm • 1 0 • view
I am?
aug 29, 2025, 2:12 pm • 0 0 • view
She's making claims, they're not opposing them as a named defendant! Opposing the Trump move would require a separate suit with the Board as plaintiff.
aug 29, 2025, 2:15 pm • 2 0 • view
I do not think that is correct. I believe they could say “we think her claims are correct and we are prepared to comply” as part of this suit. Different defendants take different positions—including ones that support plaintiffs—all the time.
aug 29, 2025, 2:17 pm • 3 1 • view
Again I don't think it's reasonable to expect a government agency to take this position. By declining to even contest they're saying a lot!
aug 29, 2025, 2:20 pm • 4 0 • view
Fair enough. Reasonable people can disagree. In my experience working in senior roles in the US Senate and Treasury Department, including on litigation requiring Executive Branch coordination, when an agency declines to contradict DOJ it's mostly out of political comity, not legal principles.
aug 29, 2025, 2:34 pm • 4 0 • view
tbc I think they are being VERY clear how they feel about it.
aug 29, 2025, 2:39 pm • 3 0 • view
So for the uninformed/lacking in the subject matter, what do you think they are saying?
aug 29, 2025, 2:24 pm • 0 0 • view
"We expect Cook to receive an injunction from a federal court, because the attempted firing is ludicrous. That's why we are not opposing her suit as a named defendant and that's why she still has device/building access. If SCOTUS ultimately rules against her we will follow their ruling."
aug 29, 2025, 2:28 pm • 5 2 • view
Attorneys general everywhere thank you for your service.
aug 29, 2025, 1:59 pm • 6 0 • view
The whole Board is a defendent, and they're not going to defend themselves against Cook. That's really as much as you can expect overtly. I would hope they do some OTR to the Fed whisperers though.
aug 29, 2025, 2:07 pm • 1 0 • view
You mean contrary to the position of the President? Agencies are part of the executive branch. I don't know if there is such a precedent, but it would be a small N to draw from: attempts to remove previous appointees have been exceedingly rare
aug 29, 2025, 2:06 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, is it rarer than a President firing a Fed Governor, which is an N of zero? My view is that either this is an existential threat to the Fed or it’s not. If it’s the former, then neutrality on this issue isn’t really an option.
aug 29, 2025, 2:15 pm • 1 0 • view
I mean we can look at previous firings of independent agency heads or even args that independent agency heads are unconstitutional. Including Humphreys and this administration, its...5?
aug 29, 2025, 2:18 pm • 0 0 • view