Supreme Court eases worries over Trump's ability to fire Powell
"We disagree," a majority of justices said in the court's brief, unsigned ruling. "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks."
The two cases have been closely watched as proxies for whether Trump has the authority to fire officials at the Fed. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that created the nation's third and still existing central bank stipulates that Fed officials may be dismissed only "for cause," not for political or policy disagreements.
"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.
Trump has repeatedly lashed out at Powell, whom he nominated to the post during his first term and who was renominated to a second term by Democratic President Joe Biden, and said he wants to see him gone from the central bank. Though Trump, who has attacked Powell over the Fed's decision to not lower interest rates, recently said he has no intention of trying to fire Powell, the possibility has unsettled financial markets that bank on an independent Fed's ability to do its job without political interference.
Powell has said he believes his firing would not be permitted under the law.
The Fed system's seven governors, including the system chair, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Powell's term ends in May 2026, and Trump is expected to nominate a successor in the coming months.
Krishna Guha, a vice chair at Evercore ISI, said the Supreme Court's opinion was encouraging but not definitive. "It strictly only addresses whether a ruling on Wilcox would 'necessarily' implicate the Fed," he said
A Fed spokeswoman did not have a comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Out
an hour ago
- Time Out
Is Delta using AI to personalize ticket prices? Here's how the airline responded to those worrying rumors
From fuel costs to holiday rushes, many factors play into the fluctuating cost of air travel. Now, Delta Air Lines is adding AI to the mix—but not without sparking concern. Delta recently faced a wave of criticism from lawmakers who feared the airline might start using AI to tailor prices to individuals based on personal data. Senators Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal warned of a future where passengers are charged based on their "pain point"—a.k.a. the maximum they're willing to pay—echoing the surge pricing model of Uber and Lyft. Delta responded swiftly. In a letter to the senators, the airline stated plainly: It has never used personal data to set individualized prices, nor does it plan to. "Our ticket pricing never takes into account personal data," the company wrote. Instead, Delta says its AI rollout is about speed—helping adjust to shifting market conditions faster and smarter, not pricing passengers based on who they are. The technology comes from Fetcherr, an Israeli startup specializing in AI-based pricing management. Delta aims to have it running across 20-percent of its domestic network by the end of 2025. Fetcherr promises airlines can "personalize offers" and "maximize profitability," language that raised more than a few red flags in Washington. Lawmakers aren't fully convinced. "Delta is telling their investors one thing, and then turning around and telling the public another," said Senator Gallego in a public statement. He and others want clarity on what kind of data Delta is actually using. Delta insists that the AI helps manage traditional variables like demand, competition and route popularity—nothing new in the airline world. "AI promises to streamline the process," not manipulate it, the company assured. Meanwhile, rivals are also weighing in. Per FOX Business, American Airlines CEO Robert Isom warned that using AI to push personal pricing "could hurt consumer trust." The debate is only heating up. A new bill introduced by Democratic lawmakers Greg Casar and Rashida Tlaib seeks to ban AI-driven pricing based on personal data altogether, citing FTC concerns about increasingly tailored—and potentially exploitative—pricing models.
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Bill and Hillary Clinton subpoenaed to testify on Jeffrey Epstein's crimes
Former President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary Clinton have been subpoenaed to speak on Jeffrey Epstein as an investigation into the late sex offender's case deepens. The Democratic former president and first lady are among nearly a dozen top officials who were issued subpoenas by House Republicans on Tuesday. Ex-President Clinton and his wife, who served as secretary of state during the Obama administration, have been called to speak before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in October. Several Justice Department officials who were under Trump have also been requested. 'The facts and circumstances surrounding both Mr. Epstein and Ms. (Ghislaine) Maxwell's cases have received immense public interest and scrutiny,' wrote committee chairman James Comer wrote in the subpoena letters. 'While the Department undertakes efforts to uncover and publicly disclose additional information related to Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell's cases, it is imperative that Congress conduct oversight of the federal government's enforcement of sex trafficking laws generally and specifically its handling of the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell.' Bill Clinton would be only the fifth former US commander-in-chief to testify before a congressional committee if is deposed on October 14. The former president rode on Epstein's private jet to go overseas at least 26 times. Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019, reportedly had in his Manhattan residence an oil painting of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress and red heels and sitting in the Oval Office. The ex-president had 'one brief visit' to Epstein's apartment in 2022, his spokesperson Angel Ureña said in 2019. Ureña at the time added that 'President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida some years ago or those with which he has been recently charged in New York.' President Donald Trump on July 25, amid backlash on his administration's handling of the Epstein case, told the press 'you should focus on Clinton'. Trump's Justice Department and FBI in early July said there was no incriminating Epstein client list, contradicting an earlier promise to release the documents. Hillary Clinton was summoned to appear on October 9. Other officials who were sent letters and their dates to testify are Trump's former Attorney General Bill Barr on August 18, former FBI Director Robert Mueller on September 2, President Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland, and Obama era former FBI Director James Comey on October 7. More Trending Meanwhile, the Justice Department has been given an August 19 deadline to disclose the full and unredacted Epstein files. Also on Tuesday, Maxwell opposed the Justice Department's effort to unseal the grand jury transcript from her case, as she appeals her sex trafficking conviction. 'Jeffrey Epstein is dead,' wrote her lawyers in a court filing. 'Ghislaine Maxwell is not.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Trump shouts about 'nuclear missiles' to press from White House roof MORE: Search for missing 'body' in river turns up life-size sex doll MORE: When the world 'likely' ends you can blame these three people, expert says
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Brazil's Supreme Court caught off guard by order to arrest Bolsonaro, sources say
SAO PAULO, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Brazil's Supreme Court was caught off-guard by Justice Alexandre de Moraes' decision late on Monday to place former President Jair Bolsonaro under house arrest, two sources at the court told Reuters on Tuesday. The order underscores Moraes' readiness to act on his own despite both polarization among Brazilians on the issue and rising tensions with the White House. It came just days ahead of the introduction of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods entering the United States. U.S. President Donald Trump imposed the levies as a reaction to what he has characterized as a "witch hunt" led by Moraes against Bolsonaro, who is standing trial under charges of plotting a coup to overturn his 2022 electoral defeat. Bolsonaro has denied wrongdoing and described Moraes as a "dictator." Moraes' ruling has sparked concern within the Brazilian government that Trump could retaliate by inflicting further damage to Brazil's economy, two sources close to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's inner circle told Reuters. But Brazilian officials are not planning to push back against Moraes. The two court sources, one of whom is a justice, told Reuters that the other Supreme Court justices were supportive of Moraes, while those close to Lula said the president has neither the willingness nor the ability to influence the Supreme Court. "It doesn't change our approach in the slightest," said the justice, who asked not to be named to discuss the matter candidly. The Lula administration is instead planning policies to support those industries likely to be hardest hit by Trump's tariffs and to keep diplomatic channels open with Washington, said the political sources. But the Moraes move could create obstacles for the Brazilian negotiators, said Fabio Medina Osorio, Brazil's former attorney general. "This decision can certainly make things difficult," he said. The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a verdict within weeks on the charges that Bolsonaro and his allies plotted to overthrow democracy. It is widely expected to convict the former president. Moraes' house arrest order cited a failure to comply with restraining orders he had imposed on Bolsonaro for allegedly courting Trump's interference in the case. While domestically Moraes has received praise by some for defending Brazil's judicial independence, others have accused him of overreach. The latest order drew mixed reactions, according to a Quaest poll based on social media posts, with 53% in favor and 47% against the arrest. Newspapers that had written scathing editorials about the alliance between Bolsonaro and Trump also questioned Moraes' decisions. "Moraes was wrong to order the arrest of the former president for communicating with supporters in a rally organized by the right," an editorial by Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo said. "Brazil must acknowledge that Jair Bolsonaro has broad freedom to defend himself in court and to express himself wherever he chooses, including on social media." Former Supreme Court justices, too, offered differing views regarding the decision. "Alexandre de Moraes, in his ruling, not only upholds the country's sovereignty and independence but also the autonomy of Brazil's judiciary," said Carlos Ayres Britto, who left the Supreme Court bench in 2012. But former Justice Marco Aurelio Mello disagreed. "My perspective would be different given the constitutional principle of presumed innocence," he said.
