Are you referring to this?
The grounds of judgement merely states that "it has no bearing on “the constitutionality of for-cause removal protections” for members of the Federal Reserve Board or Open Market Committee." I dun think this is some sort of a special status, since the law doesnt specifically state that the fed is a special entity that is different from other independent agencies.
The dissenting judges also go on to say that "if the idea is to reassure the markets, a simpler—and more judicial—approach would have been to deny the President’s application for a stay on the continued authority of Humphrey’s. “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts."
In simple terms it just means that the Supreme court should have ruled according to the 1935 landmark case (precedent), instead what we have now is a bunch of inconsistencies and "arbitrary discretion".
This is all that's needed to send message to the Trump admin.We disagree. The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States. See Seila Law, 591 U. S., at 222, n. 8.
If Trump tries to fire Powell and it goes to the Supreme Court, the right of centre Roberts and probably Barrett will join with the liberal justices.
What the left and right will do is pretty clear. So Roberts and Barrett are the swing votes, and it seems that MAGA hates them, so they must be doing something right?
