The Supreme Court isolates the Federal Reserve while Trump’s support for the launch of the agency’s leaders

the supreme court On Thursday, he suggested that Federal Reserve Members of the Board of Directors will receive special protection against its launch by a chairman in a decision that now allows the president Donald Trump R.S. Fire two members Other federal agencies.

Supreme Court in to rule He said, “We disagree” with arguments from Join Wilkox from National Council for Labor Relations and Cathy Harris From the entitlement systems protection council, their challenges in ending them “necessarily refer to the constitutionality of the protection of removal for the reasons for the members of the Governor’s Council of the Federal Reserve or other members of the Federal Open Market Committee.”

“The federal reserve is a unique organized entity, especially the following in the distinguished historical traditions of the first and second banks of the United States,” the majority.

The three liberal members in the court opposed the decision of six conservative judges, which keeps Wilkox and Harris from their councils because their lawsuit that challenges its operations is waiting.

While Thursday’s decision does not explicitly prevent Trump – or any other president – from expelling a member of the Federal Reserve, it indicates that any effort by the president to do so will face strong resistance from the Supreme Court, as shown at present.

The federal provincial court judge in Washington, DC, has spent Trump to remove both women from their councils. Later, the Court of Appeal upheld this.

But in early April, the Supreme Court remained these rulings while the case continued, which means that Trump was not to return women to their councils.

The official nature of this temporary order was added on Thursday’s opinion by the Supreme Court.

The majority said, “Because the constitution is wearing the executive authority in the president … It may remove for no reason for executive officers practicing that authority on his behalf, taking into account narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents.”

“The residence reflects our ruling that the government is likely to show that both NLRB and MSPB are practicing great executive authority.” “But we do not eventually decide in this position whether NLRB or MSPB falls within such a recognized exception; this question is better to leave it for a solution after complete briefing and argument.”

The majority also said that their residence “reflects our ruling that the government is facing a greater danger than an order that allows the employee to be removed to continue the exercise of the executive authority more than the officer’s faces that have been wrongly removed from its inability to perform its legal duty.”

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome PowellAnd, who was a target of criticism from Trump, said in November he would not resign if Trump asked him to do so.

Powell also said that the president has no ability to shoot him.

“It is not allowed under the law,” said Powell.

In a written opposition on Thursday, Judge Elena Kagan said that under the current law, “has no legal right to relief” from the arrangement in which Wilkox and Harris are returning as a lawsuit continues.

“The Congress, according to the statute, has protected NLRB and MSPB (such as Wilkox and Harris) from the presidential removal except for a good issue,” wrote Kagan, who was joined by the liberal opposition, Sonia Sotomoor and Kitanji Brown Jackson.

The opposition notes that “for a period of 90 years”, the Supreme Court’s decision in a case known as Humphrey against the United States has stood a precedent, giving partisan administrative federal bodies a measure of independence from presidential control.

Kagan called the majority to exempt it to the federal reserve.

Kagan wrote: “The majority is closed today by reporting, from blue, that it does not affect” the constitutional protection of the cause of the cause “for members of the Federal Reserve or the Open Market Committee.”

“I am happy to hear that, and I do not doubt the majority of the majority to avoid emptying the federal reserve,” she wrote. “But after that, today’s order is offered a mystery. For the independence of the federal reserve depends on the same constitutional and analytical foundations such as NLRB, MSPB, FTC, FCC and so on – which depends on his education to a large extent on Humphrey.”

“Therefore, the majority must present a different story: The Federal Reserve, which is subject, is an” uniquely organized “entity” with a “distinct historical tradition” – and this footnote indicates 8 of the opinion of this court in the Celala law, “Kagan wrote.

However – excuse – Footnote 8 does not provide any support, “she added:” The only relevant sentence rejects an argument that was presented in the opposition opinion “even on the assumption (that) financial institutions such as
The second bank and the federal reserve can claim a special historical position. “

“Thus, the assumption that has been placed in the spirit of humor turns into a kind of pregnancy,” Kagan wrote. Because one of the ways to place a new law on the emergency schedule (neglecting Humphrey) turns out that another (creating an exception from the detailed federal reserve).