Trump v. Cook · ¶156

The Court’s constitutional reasoning depends entirely on an ahistorical analogy between the Board and the First and Second Banks of the United States. See ante, at 22–23. The problem for the Court is that the First and Second Banks were banks with no executive power, whereas the Board is unquestionably a federal agency that wields considerable executive power. See supra, at 3–9. The Board does not follow in “our Nation’s tradition of central banking” at all. Ante, at 9; see supra, at 3–6. It is not a “bank,” ante, at 23, but a novel “federal agency” with “broad powers affecting the entire banking and currency system,” Cushman 153; see supra, at 4–5. The “‘founders of our Government,’” ante, at 22, thought that distinction was significant. Although the Court attempts to imply otherwise, ibid., it does not deny that the First and Second Banks of the United States exercised no executive…

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