Source item

Quoted context

These are the quoted author’s words.

“At the ♥️ of the Trump administration’s plans is a request that the Supreme Court revisit Humphrey’s Executor, a 90-year-old ruling that requires cause before a president can fire members of most independent regulatory agencies. And that bid to overturn Humphrey’s may succeed, given that the high court chipped away at the precedent in a 2020 ruling against protections for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership.” “But legal experts say overturning Humphrey’s Executor would constrain every independent agency with multiple members — including the Federal Reserve…” “But at the same time … if you overrule Humphrey’s Executor, I don’t see how you can carve out a rule that still allows the Federal Reserve to be different,” “Trump’s executive order this month pointedly covered the Fed’s supervision of banks and other financial institutions while exempting its monetary policy decisions. Whether it’s possible to so narrowly preserve independent decision-making is another matter. As the saying goes, if you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other,” Peter Conti-Brown, professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said. “The Fed is a single stick.” “Even if the Supreme Court does not overturn Humphrey’s, Conti-Brown added, Trump’s recent order “turns the relationship instead into one of subordination of the Fed to the White House.”

jam_croissant ↗