A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday in a legal battle over President Donald Trump's firing of two federal labor board members contained a line that eased, for now, worries that the cases could open the door for Trump to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell at will.
The court's order allows Trump to keep the two Democratic labor board members sidelined while they challenge the legality of their removal.
Lawyers for Gwynne Wilcox, who was removed from the National Labor Relations Board, and for Cathy Harris, who was dismissed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, had argued that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration could undermine legal protections for Fed policymakers long seen as being insulated from presidential dismissal for reasons other than malfeasance or misconduct.
"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.
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.
