Quotes
No, I have no intention of firing him,
Trump told reporters at the White House Not since the 1950s (or even before) has a President, without a legitimate reason, tried to remove an officer from a classic independent agency,
Justice Elena Kagan wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson The Supreme Court has repeatedly told the courts of appeals to follow extant Supreme Court precedent unless and until that Court itself changes it or overturns it,
judges noted in their opinion The impatience to get on with things—to now hand the President the most unitary, meaning also the most subservient, administration since Herbert Hoover (and maybe ever)—must reveal how that eventual decision will go,
Rushing such important matters risks making mistakes and destabilizing other areas of the law,
Harris’s lawyers told the Supreme Court this week The President’s choice to instead remove Ms. Wilcox does not bring the Board closer in line with his preferred policies; it prevents the agency from carrying out its congressionally mandated duties at all,
The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States,
Today’s order favors the President over our precedent; and it does so unrestrained by the rules of briefing and argument—and the passage of time— needed to discipline our decision-making,
Over the past two centuries, Congress has embedded modest for-cause removal restrictions in the structure of numerous multi-member agencies,
she said in response to the administration’s appeal Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law, ... It is one thing to grant relief in that way when doing so vindicates established legal rights, which somehow the courts below have disregarded. It is a wholly different thing to skip the usual appellate process when issuing an order that itself changes the law."
I would deny the President's application,
The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,
This view of the Supreme Court really does ease my worries about their inclination to extrapolate from the NLRB cases to the Fed so I breathed a sigh of relief,
said LH Meyer analyst Derek Tang, who has followed the cases closely It strictly only addresses whether a ruling on Wilcox would 'necessarily' implicate the Fed,
Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents,
the majority held in a 6-3 decision, citing the high court's 2020 precedent in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau What matters, in other words, is not that Wilcox and Harris would love to keep serving in their nifty jobs. What matters instead is that Congress provided for them to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies,
The Federal Reserve’s independence rests on the same constitutional and analytic foundations as that of the NLRB, MSPB, FTC, [Federal Communications Commission,] and so on,
The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration's policy objectives for a single day - much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,
The stay reflects our judgment that the government is likely to show that both the NLRB and MSPB exercise considerable executive power,
the court noted in an unsigned order
.jpg)
