Still, the majority’s carveout could represent a pivotal moment for central bank independence. For nearly a century, Congress has relied on staggered terms and cause-based removal protections to keep monetary policy isolated from short-term political pressures. The Fed’s ability to make unpopular decisions—like raising interest rates to contain inflation—has long rested on these structural defenses.
Powell himself recently acknowledged the significance of the legal proceedings, though he expressed confidence that the central bank’s autonomy was legally sound. “Our independence is a matter of law,” he said last month, emphasizing the Fed’s role as a nonpartisan economic steward.
That sentiment has found backing abroad. Tiff Macklem, governor of the Bank of Canada, called central bank independence “sacrosanct” and warned against undermining it. Speaking from Ottawa, Macklem praised the track record of independent monetary authorities and cautioned that political interference could compromise economic stability.
The Supreme Court’s signal comes at a delicate moment for the global economy. Investors have been closely watching the outcome of this case, concerned that unchecked executive authority over the Fed could unsettle markets and weaken international confidence in American financial governance.
For now, the Court’s action appears to thread a careful needle: expanding presidential control over much of the executive branch while preserving a cornerstone of financial stability. Whether that balance holds in the long term may depend on whether the Court formally overturns Humphrey’s Executor—a step with the potential to remake the administrative state.