‘What Goes Around Comes Around’: Kavanaugh Raises Red Flag in Trump Fed Firing Case
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Conservative-leaning justices had tough questions for whether President Donald Trump can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on monetary policy and the economy.
Trump had attempted to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook based on alleged misstatements she made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing.
The question in Trump v. Cook is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or whether the institution created in 1913 has independence from the executive branch.
At oral arguments in the case on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the court should consider the severity of an accusation in determining whether a firing is justified.
“If she were accused of murder or something like that, if we’re talking about something that was really an infamous crime, should we take the nature of the crime into account?” Barrett asked.
Solicitor General John Sauer said the court should consider the “sweeping, powerful authority over the entire United States economy” that a Federal Reserve governor has to set interest rates. He said the court should also consider how the board member’s objectionable conduct looks to “ordinary Americans.”
“There’s the appearance of having played fast and loose, or at least been grossly negligent, in getting favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, currently the subject of a criminal investigation by Trump’s Justice Department over allegations of misspending, was present in the chamber on Wednesday for oral arguments.
Members of the Federal Reserve board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member.
The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence. It is also funded primarily by private financial institutions, and not Congress.
Cook contested her firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, and that the act includes due process.
The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the board of governors and contends the allegations of Cook’s mortgage misstatements meet the “for cause” standard.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was concerned that a “law bar” for the firing would weaken, if not “shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
Sauer said the administration is not arguing that Fed board members can be fired without cause.
“In a sense, it’s a very high bar,” Sauer said. “It does protect them from the one thing that Congress was apparently most worried about, which is removal for policy disagreement.”
Kavanaugh replied that Cook’s firing could set a political precedent: “What goes around comes around.”
“A current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president or January 20, 2033,” Kavanaugh said. “Once these tools are unleashed, they’re used by both sides.”
Sauer replied that “the president has always had this tool to remove …
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Conservative-leaning justices had tough questions for whether President Donald Trump can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on monetary policy and the economy.
Trump had attempted to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook based on alleged misstatements she made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing.
The question in Trump v. Cook is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or whether the institution created in 1913 has independence from the executive branch.
At oral arguments in the case on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the court should consider the severity of an accusation in determining whether a firing is justified.
“If she were accused of murder or something like that, if we’re talking about something that was really an infamous crime, should we take the nature of the crime into account?” Barrett asked.
Solicitor General John Sauer said the court should consider the “sweeping, powerful authority over the entire United States economy” that a Federal Reserve governor has to set interest rates. He said the court should also consider how the board member’s objectionable conduct looks to “ordinary Americans.”
“There’s the appearance of having played fast and loose, or at least been grossly negligent, in getting favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, currently the subject of a criminal investigation by Trump’s Justice Department over allegations of misspending, was present in the chamber on Wednesday for oral arguments.
Members of the Federal Reserve board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member.
The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence. It is also funded primarily by private financial institutions, and not Congress.
Cook contested her firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, and that the act includes due process.
The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the board of governors and contends the allegations of Cook’s mortgage misstatements meet the “for cause” standard.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was concerned that a “law bar” for the firing would weaken, if not “shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
Sauer said the administration is not arguing that Fed board members can be fired without cause.
“In a sense, it’s a very high bar,” Sauer said. “It does protect them from the one thing that Congress was apparently most worried about, which is removal for policy disagreement.”
Kavanaugh replied that Cook’s firing could set a political precedent: “What goes around comes around.”
“A current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president or January 20, 2033,” Kavanaugh said. “Once these tools are unleashed, they’re used by both sides.”
Sauer replied that “the president has always had this tool to remove …
‘What Goes Around Comes Around’: Kavanaugh Raises Red Flag in Trump Fed Firing Case
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Conservative-leaning justices had tough questions for whether President Donald Trump can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, in a Supreme Court case that could have a major impact on monetary policy and the economy.
Trump had attempted to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook based on alleged misstatements she made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing.
The question in Trump v. Cook is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, or whether the institution created in 1913 has independence from the executive branch.
At oral arguments in the case on Wednesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked if the court should consider the severity of an accusation in determining whether a firing is justified.
“If she were accused of murder or something like that, if we’re talking about something that was really an infamous crime, should we take the nature of the crime into account?” Barrett asked.
Solicitor General John Sauer said the court should consider the “sweeping, powerful authority over the entire United States economy” that a Federal Reserve governor has to set interest rates. He said the court should also consider how the board member’s objectionable conduct looks to “ordinary Americans.”
“There’s the appearance of having played fast and loose, or at least been grossly negligent, in getting favorable interest rates for herself,” Sauer said.
Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, currently the subject of a criminal investigation by Trump’s Justice Department over allegations of misspending, was present in the chamber on Wednesday for oral arguments.
Members of the Federal Reserve board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member.
The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence. It is also funded primarily by private financial institutions, and not Congress.
Cook contested her firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, and that the act includes due process.
The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the board of governors and contends the allegations of Cook’s mortgage misstatements meet the “for cause” standard.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh was concerned that a “law bar” for the firing would weaken, if not “shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
Sauer said the administration is not arguing that Fed board members can be fired without cause.
“In a sense, it’s a very high bar,” Sauer said. “It does protect them from the one thing that Congress was apparently most worried about, which is removal for policy disagreement.”
Kavanaugh replied that Cook’s firing could set a political precedent: “What goes around comes around.”
“A current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president or January 20, 2033,” Kavanaugh said. “Once these tools are unleashed, they’re used by both sides.”
Sauer replied that “the president has always had this tool to remove …
0 Comments
0 Shares
178 Views
0 Reviews
