Trump v. Cook · ¶141

The Federal Reserve Act’s removal provision is not a com- mon-law term of art that means perforce that a removed officer is entitled to notice and a hearing. The Court’s interpretation of the removal provision is not based on the common law at all. In support of its notice-and-hearing requirement, the Court cites no “eminent common-law authorities” interpreting any of the terms of the Federal Reserve Act’s removal provision. Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U. S. 271, 279 (2020). The Court’s reasoning is instead based on two statutory-interpretation decisions that said nothing about the common law. See ante, at 18–21 (citing Reagan v. United States, 182 U. S. 419 (1901); Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U. S. 311 (1903)).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.