Supreme Court Set to Weigh Presidential Power in Federal Reserve Board Dispute
Washington D.C. – A case before the Supreme Court this fall threatens to substantially expand presidential authority, perhaps allowing the executive branch to unilaterally define the meaning of laws passed by Congress. The dispute centers on former President Trump‘s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard, and hinges on his claim that he – and he alone – has the power to determine what constitutes “cause” for removing a member of the Fed’s board.
The legal battle began with Trump’s effort to remove Governor Michelle Cook, alleging mortgage fraud as justification. Cook countered that the allegations were a pretext for a political disagreement and that judicial review of termination decisions is essential to maintaining the Federal Reserve’s independence.
At the heart of the case is a seemingly minor point of statutory interpretation – the meaning of “cause” within a 111-year-old law governing the Federal Reserve. However, the implications are far-reaching. Trump’s legal team argues the term is “capacious” and its definition is entirely within the President’s discretion, shielding his judgment from judicial oversight. This assertion directly challenges the established system of checks and balances, raising concerns that the executive branch could effectively write laws itself.
“If the branch of government charged with carrying out the law – the executive branch – also gets to define it, separation of powers also appears to be left by the wayside,” the case highlights.
Cook’s lawyers warn that abandoning judicial review woudl subject the national economy to “the short-term whims of a president rather than the long-term vision of economic experts.” They also point to what they describe as the “acquiescence of Congress” to Trump’s broad claims of power, suggesting the courts may represent the last remaining check on executive authority until the next presidential election.
The Supreme court’s decision is arduous to predict. Trump has recently enjoyed a “string of victories” before the court, fueled by a conservative majority inclined towards executive power and judicial deference to the President. However, justices have previously expressed support for the independence of the Federal Reserve, as demonstrated in the Wilcox case, and may be wary of the potential economic fallout from a ruling that empowers the President to control monetary policy.
The case evokes the foundational principle of judicial review, articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, who famously stated that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary department to say what the law is.” This maxim,inscribed on the Supreme Court building,will be central to the court’s deliberations.The outcome will determine whether that principle remains a cornerstone of american democracy, or whether the power to interpret the law will rest solely with the President. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments this fall.
