The U.S. president attacked Powell on Thursday, saying that “he is always late and is simply a small slow.” “I’m not happy with him,” he said. erstwhile asked by a reporter in the Oval Office whether he intended to resign the head of the U.S. Central Bank, Trump said: “ If I want him gone, he'll go very quickly, believe me.
Trump's offensive caused investors and economists to draw their attention to a case that is presently pending before American courts and concerns the earlier dismissal of board members in 2 another independent agencies.
Both officials held importantly lower positions than Powell, but were protected by the same precedent of the 1935 ultimate Court, known as Humphrey’s Executor.
Powell said on Wednesday that the Fed “pretensely monitors” a case that concerns Trump's dismissal of Gwynne Wilcox from the National labour Relations Board and Cathy Harris, president of the Merit Systems Protection Board.
What precisely is the matter?
It will be a test for a ultimate Court decision taken 90 years ago in the Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States case, in which the highest American court ruled in favour of William Humphrey, erstwhile head of the national Trade Commission, in connection with the decision of president Franklin D. Roosevelt to remove him from office in 1933 due to his opposition to the fresh Deal policy.
After Humphrey's death, the executor of his will came to his due compensation, and the ultimate Court ruled that Roosevelt acted unlawfully by firing the head of the government agency without “cause” — that word is commonly utilized in relation to illegal activities or gross incompetence.
Since then, this ruling has allowed independent agencies — including Feds — to defy political force erstwhile deciding on monetary policy.
Powell, who intends to stay president until the end of his word of office, which will last until May 2026, said on Wednesday that the independency of the American central bank in setting interest rates at its discretion is simply a "legal matter".
Drew Angerer/Getty Images / Getty ImagesU.S. president Donald Trump and then national Reserve president candidate Jerome Powell during a press gathering at the Rose Garden in the White House, Washington, on November 2, 2017.
Why is the Humphrey’s Executor precedent so crucial to the American central bank?
This ruling is the largest legal barrier preventing Trump from releasing Powell or six another members of the Fed Board of Governors.
David Wilcox, a erstwhile Fed economist who presently works at the Peterson Institute for global Economics, said that this precedent had become so crucial in the public's perception of Fed independency that any questioning of it would most likely origin panic.
“Just authorising the president to usage the anticipation of firing board members would upset marketplace participants and undermine the credibility of the national Reserve in the eyes of investors,” Wilcox said. “We could so face a alternatively serious negative marketplace reaction to specified a ultimate Court decision, ” he added.
Why are any Fed observers concerned?
Wilcox and Harris, appointed by the Biden administration, were released after Trump became president in January. They brought cases against the government to national courts that ordered them back to work.
Trump's administration later appealed to the United States Court of Appeal for the territory of Colombia, which on April 7, backed the decision of the lower court courts to reinstate Wilcox and Harris to work. The court in its decision explicitly referred to the precedent of Humphrey’s Executor.
The United States then appealed to the ultimate Court to repeal the order of the lower courts. justice John Roberts issued a resolution on 9 April that prevents Wilcox and Harris from returning to work until the case was dealt with by the ultimate Court. That court may issue an appeal decision in the coming days. It required the parties to respond to the appeal by 15 April.
Lev Menand, a lawyer from Columbia University, described the circumstances of the case as ‘uniquely rare’, arguing that if the ultimate Court had inactive denied women the right to return to work, people would most likely have started to see the precedent of Humphrey’s Executor as ‘lost’.
— Even if the court yet maintains and in a fewer months restores these people to work, then if it agrees with the government and they are expelled from work during a transitional period, The same in itself is Trump's partial victory. Even if he yet lost the case, he said.
Will Harris and Wilcox affect Fed?
Some lawyers claim that the reason Humphrey’s Executor has stayed so long is due to the fact that ultimate Court judges recognise the importance of having an independent American central bank — This includes Conservatives Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, on the basis of their earlier judgments.
Last year, the judges voted by 7–2 votes in favour of the decision, which was seen as an component of legal support for Fed independence, even though it officially afraid the Consumer Finance Office (CFPB). Even Alito, who voted against the FPB backing mechanism, noted in his separate conviction that Fed is simply a "special institution with a unique historical background", making it special.
Experts say that even if the ultimate Court sided with Trump in the Wilcox and Harris cases, his ruling may include a clause that would defend Fed governors from political pressure. “The first Congress, convened immediately after ratification of the Constitution, set up the First Bank of the United States,” said Daniel Tarullo, prof. of Harvard Law School, who had previously been politician of Fed.
— Although the statutes of the First and Second Bank were yet not renewed, their creation created a precedent for an early version of the central bank, which was more independent of the president than today's national Reserve, he pointed out.
Powell, who is simply a lawyer, said on Wednesday that any decision on "will not apply to Fed". “In general, Fed independency is widely understood and supported in Washington, Congress, where it truly matters,” Powell added.
© The Financial Times Limited 2025. All rights reserved. No distribution, copying or modification shall be permitted. Onet bears sole work for translation, Financial Times Limited bears no work for its accuracy or quality.
