A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent protecting Fed independence is on its deathbed

"Until his dying day, Humphrey maintained that he held his job and could, by law, only be fired for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office" - in other words, "for cause." His dying day turned out to be four months later, in 1934, following a stroke. His executor sued the Roosevelt administration, alleging it owed Humphrey's estate back pay."

"The case, known as Humphrey's Executor, was decided 9-0 by the US Supreme Court. The decision recognized limits in the president's ability to fire members of independent agencies like the FTC, which are designed to be "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative, in order to safeguard its independence of political domination," the Supreme Court wrote. The court's reasoning "extended beyond the specifics of the FTC," said Jessica Levinson, a professor of constitutional law at Loyola Law School."

President Donald Trump sought to force Lisa Cook out of the Federal Reserve, and her lawyers pointed to a historical Supreme Court precedent limiting presidential removal authority. On October 7, 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt fired William E. Humphrey from the Federal Trade Commission after Humphrey refused to resign. Humphrey insisted he could be removed only for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office." Humphrey died four months later and his executor sued for back pay. The Supreme Court in Humphrey's Executor ruled unanimously that presidents face limits when removing officials of independent, "quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative" agencies, and the ruling has been applied to agencies including the Federal Reserve.

Read at Business Insider