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.
tbc I think they are being VERY clear how they feel about it.
My interpretation of their communications is the same as yours. My issue is that constructive ambiguity does not work in either litigation or a political fight. They're the experts on the FRA. If they tell a court Cook is right, that has a lot of weight and they only get one bite at this apple.
I’m curious if you have ever seen a similar example of an agency arguing against the sitting admin’s position like that.
Well, nothing is quite similar to the nature and stakes of this case. But the thing that jumps to mind most immediately is that Treasury and DOJ have disagreed with the OCC about the scope of preemption during the last two Democratic administrations.
That is, *National Bank Act* preemption.
The trouble is that the Fed's accustomed methods of understatement with expert interpreters doesn't quite work for this scenario. I think the real risk is what Nathan ID's in his post today: opposing POTUS could give Trump a better argument for good cause removal of Powell
Yes that’s absolutely true.
We are in a bad place if "defending the proper interpretation of the Federal Reserve Act" constitutes cause sufficient to remove the *Chair of the Federal Reserve.*
Well, yeah, it sucks here!