Gillian Metzger

And that's sort of been politically constructed over time. But it's not expressly in the statute. So as a matter of statutory interpretation, I think it's a pretty close call.

And that's sort of been politically constructed over time. But it's not expressly in the statute. So as a matter of statutory interpretation, I think it's a pretty close call.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the constitutional question is different if you're talking about a member of the Board of Governors or the chair. If you're talking about a member of the Board of Governors, I think actually there's a very good likelihood the court would sustain it.

So the constitutional question is different if you're talking about a member of the Board of Governors or the chair. If you're talking about a member of the Board of Governors, I think actually there's a very good likelihood the court would sustain it.

I think part of the reason why the court has not overruled some of its earlier precedent, particularly that 1935 case about the FTC, is because it doesn't want to call the structure of the Federal Reserve into constitutional question. That goes for the 14-year term at the Board of Governors. When you're talking about the chair, I think it's a closer call.

I think part of the reason why the court has not overruled some of its earlier precedent, particularly that 1935 case about the FTC, is because it doesn't want to call the structure of the Federal Reserve into constitutional question. That goes for the 14-year term at the Board of Governors. When you're talking about the chair, I think it's a closer call.

One of the points that the court has emphasized in, for example, that case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the importance of the president being able to pick a chair. And a chair is somebody who can really control how the agency operates and has additional powers. So I think that the court would look more askance.

One of the points that the court has emphasized in, for example, that case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the importance of the president being able to pick a chair. And a chair is somebody who can really control how the agency operates and has additional powers. So I think that the court would look more askance.

had a removal protection for a position as powerful as the Federal Reserve's chair. But that said, the Federal Reserve is a kind of unique thing.

had a removal protection for a position as powerful as the Federal Reserve's chair. But that said, the Federal Reserve is a kind of unique thing.

And the court might very well just think of it as not necessarily being traditional executive power or just being historically ratified in a way that puts it outside of the other kinds of agencies that it's willing to call removal protections for into question.

And the court might very well just think of it as not necessarily being traditional executive power or just being historically ratified in a way that puts it outside of the other kinds of agencies that it's willing to call removal protections for into question.

Yeah, I think that's really true. And, you know, the interesting thing is also going to be in the case of the Federal Reserve, you're not just talking about the legal questions. You're talking about how does the market respond? And that's a whole nother set of forms that the court hasn't had to deal with in its other removal cases.

Yeah, I think that's really true. And, you know, the interesting thing is also going to be in the case of the Federal Reserve, you're not just talking about the legal questions. You're talking about how does the market respond? And that's a whole nother set of forms that the court hasn't had to deal with in its other removal cases.

Well, I think one thing to bear in mind is we don't fully know yet, right? This is a decision that is changing a watershed precedent in terms of deference to agency views. How it plays out, what the courts will do, are questions that it's going to take years to work out.

Well, I think one thing to bear in mind is we don't fully know yet, right? This is a decision that is changing a watershed precedent in terms of deference to agency views. How it plays out, what the courts will do, are questions that it's going to take years to work out.

And that, I think, is actually one of the biggest condemnations of the decision, that it will lead to tremendous uncertainty and transition costs as we move from the prior regime we've been under to this new approach to agency interpretation. That said, I think one clear winner is the courts.

And that, I think, is actually one of the biggest condemnations of the decision, that it will lead to tremendous uncertainty and transition costs as we move from the prior regime we've been under to this new approach to agency interpretation. That said, I think one clear winner is the courts.