Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/01/21/federal-reserve-lisa-cook-brett-kavanaugh-trump/
According to the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, the president may only remove a member of the Fed's Board of Governors "for cause." In this case, Trump claims that he has sufficient cause to fire Cook because of the mortgage fraud allegations that Trump leveled against her in a Truth Social post and in a letter purporting to fire her (no formal charges have been filed). Cook, however, disputes those allegations and says that she possesses evidence in her favor that the president never considered.
The Trump administration basically contends that the existence of any such evidence is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, because, in its view, the president alone gets to decide what counts as a sufficient "cause" for Cook's removal. What is more, the administration told the Supreme Court that the judiciary is effectively powerless in the face of Trump's decision to fire Cook. "When, as here, the President provides a cause," the administration argued in one of its briefs, "courts may not review his factual findings or his application of the for-cause standard to the facts, or otherwise second-guess his judgment that the removal is justified."
That assertion of unreviewable executive discretion was quickly challenged by Justice Brett Kavanaugh during yesterday's arguments. "Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, a very low bar for cause that the president alone determines," Kavanaugh told Solicitor General John Sauer, "I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve."
Sauer's blood pressure probably spiked to a dangerous level when he heard those unkind words coming from Kavanaugh, who has been all too kind to the executive branch in other recent cases. And it only got worse for Sauer from there.
"Let's talk about the real-world downstream effects of this because, if this were set as a precedent," Kavanaugh continued, "it seems to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around." So "all of the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there's a Democratic president, or January 20th, 2033," he observed, "and then we're really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?"
According to the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, the president may only remove a member of the Fed's Board of Governors "for cause." In this case, Trump claims that he has sufficient cause to fire Cook because of the mortgage fraud allegations that Trump leveled against her in a Truth Social post and in a letter purporting to fire her (no formal charges have been filed). Cook, however, disputes those allegations and says that she possesses evidence in her favor that the president never considered.
The Trump administration basically contends that the existence of any such evidence is irrelevant to the outcome of the case, because, in its view, the president alone gets to decide what counts as a sufficient "cause" for Cook's removal. What is more, the administration told the Supreme Court that the judiciary is effectively powerless in the face of Trump's decision to fire Cook. "When, as here, the President provides a cause," the administration argued in one of its briefs, "courts may not review his factual findings or his application of the for-cause standard to the facts, or otherwise second-guess his judgment that the removal is justified."
That assertion of unreviewable executive discretion was quickly challenged by Justice Brett Kavanaugh during yesterday's arguments. "Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, a very low bar for cause that the president alone determines," Kavanaugh told Solicitor General John Sauer, "I mean, that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve."
Sauer's blood pressure probably spiked to a dangerous level when he heard those unkind words coming from Kavanaugh, who has been all too kind to the executive branch in other recent cases. And it only got worse for Sauer from there.
"Let's talk about the real-world downstream effects of this because, if this were set as a precedent," Kavanaugh continued, "it seems to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around." So "all of the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there's a Democratic president, or January 20th, 2033," he observed, "and then we're really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?"
False premise, it’s the Golden Age and a Democrat won’t win ever again.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
He should just say the quiet part out load. We can rule 1 way now then just rule the opposite way once a Democrat is in office.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
And then they’ll complain about “retail deserts.” If you want civilization, you need to be civilized.
acesfull86
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
Yes
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/20/supreme-court-trump-tariffs/
No president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, but it contains the phrase “regulate … importation.” Trump said that was sufficient authorization for him to throw out the rest of the tariff schedules and set import taxes however he pleased.
Roberts saw the flimsiness of that reasoning. “Based on two words separated by 16 others,” he wrote, “the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.” Indeed. The executive branch can’t be allowed to grab hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people on such a thin legal basis.
Reading between the lines, there’s a sense that Trump’s frenetic alteration of tariff rates weighed on the court. The opinion notes that under Trump’s reading of the law, he is “free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will” — and indeed he has.
--------
As usual, Trump was his own worst enemy.
No president has used IEEPA to impose tariffs, but it contains the phrase “regulate … importation.” Trump said that was sufficient authorization for him to throw out the rest of the tariff schedules and set import taxes however he pleased.
Roberts saw the flimsiness of that reasoning. “Based on two words separated by 16 others,” he wrote, “the President asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time. Those words cannot bear such weight.” Indeed. The executive branch can’t be allowed to grab hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people on such a thin legal basis.
Reading between the lines, there’s a sense that Trump’s frenetic alteration of tariff rates weighed on the court. The opinion notes that under Trump’s reading of the law, he is “free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will” — and indeed he has.
--------
As usual, Trump was his own worst enemy.
chop2chip
Well-known member
“Once this Court reads a doubtful statute as granting the executive branch a given power, that power may prove almost impossible for Congress to retrieve.” A ruling for the President here would allow future Presidents to “impose tariffs on gas-powered vehicles to respond to climate change” or “on virtually any imports for any emergency any President might perceive”; “What President would willingly give up that kind of power?”