The FTC, for example, exercises classic “executive power.” It sues people for violating antitrust and consumer protection laws. It doesn’t get more “executive power” than that.
The Fed, by contrast, for the most part doesn’t exercise “executive power.” The Fed influences private conduct indirectly through open market operations as a bank. The Fed has ancillary functions in making and enforcing bank regulations, but arguably those are separable. That makes the independence of the Fed a much trickier question.
At the other extreme would be someone like the CEO of Amtrak. He can’t exercise the power of the state to prosecute you. It’s a train company that functions like any other company and happens to be government owned.
advisedwang•53m ago
cm2187•51m ago
psunavy03•48m ago
When the Court does what people like, they're a legitimate and vital check on government power. When it does what people don't like, they're unelected politicans in robes.
hackyhacky•29m ago
SCOTUS does not care about regulatory or labor protections, because the Justices are friends with and receive payments from the billionaire class (Leonard Leo, Charles Koch, Erik Prince) who benefit from weaker protections.
On the other hand, a corrupt Fed could lead to rampant inflation, which would devalue their 401k.
In other words, SCOTUS is motivated by self interest, not rule of law or justice.
mikece•48m ago
hackyhacky•36m ago
I think you know that blanket statements of this type are at best inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion. The Fed is an entity created by federal statute and staffed by presidential appointees, so it's at least a little misleading to say that it's not part of the federal government.
jonny_eh•33m ago
dragonwriter•31m ago
The Federal Reserve System is a bit more complicated than the Board of Governors (but is also effectively part of the federal government, but a sui generis, highly corporatist part of the federal government, with direct involvement in an unusual manner by powerful private entities.)
CamperBob2•48m ago
Yes, it's bullshit either way, but it's not hard to see the court's reasoning here.
redserk•42m ago
The FTC is not simply under the executive branch, it’s defined to be an independent agency.
The handling of the Federal Reserve and the FTC cases are creating a very interesting situation for how agencies can be defined by Congress.
lockedinsuburb•38m ago
Ends up the USSC will have to decide.
lokar•31m ago
The argument is all of this violates the constitution. There has not yet been a clear principle articulated by the court for treating them differently.
cosmicgadget•28m ago
The idea of a unitary executive is obviously being relitigated but there's no question that independent executive agencies have existed for a century.
redserk•27m ago
I will argue that the inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s rulings are creating an environment where some independent agencies will receive special consideration based on their function. This sets up an environment where Congress loses out on the collaborative benefits and safeguards of independent agencies in favor of the courts further empowering the Executive.
rayiner•21m ago
dragonwriter•24m ago
The concrete impact of the act to be allowed or constrained is, very much, a part of that analysis, so situations which are otherwise legally similar in terms of the underlying issues but where the potential impacts in the interim of adjudication are different can very easily have very different outcomes at this level without judicial favoritism or misconduct.
Which isn't to say that there aren't problems with recent Supreme Court decisions in this area, just than you need more than “cases with similar underlying legal questions have different outcomes on preliminary orders governing what is allowed before the case is resolved” to make that case.
rayiner•12m ago
The problems aren’t with the recent decisions, but the 1930s ones. I don’t think there’s a decision on the books today that was more clearly wrongly decided than Humphrey’s Executor. I mean:
> The commission is to be nonpartisan, and it must, from the very nature of its duties, act with entire impartiality. It is charged with the enforcement of no policy except the policy of the law. Its duties are neither political nor executive, but predominantly quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative.
The concession in italics should have made this a slam dunk case in the other direction. Enforcement of the law is the quintessential executive power. An English peasant in the 1600s could have gotten this one right. And where does the constitution say anything about Congress being able to create “quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative” bodies? The founders spilled all this ink to make three branches of government, but they really meant “j/k mix them all up into one unelected body if you want!”
georgemcbay•21m ago
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2025/08/21/calvinb...
hackyhacky•15m ago
If that distinction sounds preposterous to you, then congratulations, you reached the same conclusion that Justice Jackson reached when she complained that the conservative majority is playing "Calvinball" to reach results-based decisions regardless of statute, precedent, and the Constitution.
For those who didn't grow up in the 90s, Calvinball is a reference to a fictional sport from the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, in which the sport's rules are made up and change constantly.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Calvinball