Volume 92.2

March

2025

Under the Supreme Court’s contemporary approach to constitutional meaning, there is a surprising degree of doubt about whether key aspects of the Federal Reserve (“Fed”)—its independence from Congress and the President, and even its power to create money—are constitutional. In particular, we propose that the structure and monetary authority of the Fed can be justified by Article I, Section 8 borrowing power, and by the Public Debt Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1935, eight members of the Court agreed that these provisions require credible commitments: to meaningfully exercise the borrowing power, Congress must be able to promise creditors it will not undermine the value of its debts. We argue that judicial enforcement of sovereign promises is unlikely to fulfill this goal. Instead, the exercise of monetary authority by independent central banks is the most promising current solution to the credible sovereign borrower problem.

Regionalism is central to our country’s central banking system. Rather than rely on a single organization, Congress created twelve Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs), each in a different part of the country. These FRBs are an undertheorized example of how the federal government uses regional bodies to formulate and administer federal policy. This Essay examines the regional aspect of the FRBs, distinguishing between three types of regionalism: regional policy variation, regional policy formulation, and regional policy implementation. Regional policy variation makes less and less sense in today’s national and interconnected financial system. The trend of shifting decisions from the FRBs to national bodies should be continued. But regional voice and implementation should be retained. The Open Market Committee is critical for incorporating regional perspectives into uniform, national policy, and the FRBs carry out these policies at a regional level in ways that enhance legitimacy, improve efficacy, and promote resiliency.

We offer a way of thinking about public-investment institutions as creatures of both public law and private markets. Placing public investment—a distinct public function—in the context of constitutional debates on the legitimate reach of the administrative state, we focus the search for legitimate institutional structure on the interaction between the entity’s efficacy as a market actor and the concept of public accountability. This tension, as well as synergy, is where the fundamental hybridity of public-investment institutions is most visible. We argue that only by considering the unique objectives and tools of public investment as a legitimate sovereign activity can we design workable mechanisms of democratic accountability for public-investment institutions. We hope that our observations shed light on the broader debate about the optimal implementation mechanisms for the nation’s reemerging industrial policy.

The pursuit of financial stability goals over the past fifteen years has fueled the perception that a regulatory “expertocracy” governs the field of banking, rather than market forces. This Essay discusses four areas where financial stability or systemic risk mandates—either express or assumed—empowered bank regulators and supervisors to substitute their judgment for that of Congress: (1) the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s power to designate nonbank systemically important financial institutions; (2) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s power to bail out uninsured bank depositors; (3) the adoption of inter-national standards of bank regulation through Basel; and (4) the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s power to deny bank merger applications on financial stability grounds.

The market for Treasury securities, a deep and liquid market for risk-free debt, has anchored an ambitious and creative U.S. dollar economy while also ensuring the safety and soundness of its financial and monetary system. But as the market has grown, a series of disruptions to Treasury market trading have prompted policymakers to explore measures to strengthen the market’s foundations and shore up its resilience. This Essay considers this regulatory response. It focuses on the introduction of mandatory central clearing for most trades in U.S. Treasuries—a proposal seeking to significantly reshape the day-to-day functioning of the Treasury market. Central clearing is a well-established means by which to reduce the risk of loss associated when trading parties default. We analyze this mandate, detailing its likely advantages as well as its potential trade-offs from a public policy perspective.

This Essay compares a judicial revolution that is happening to one that is not. Both the change and the status quo are being managed by the current Supreme Court. That Court has, when it comes to administrative law, shown a capacity to revisit everything. But when it comes to securities regulation, it has resisted change. What is the explanation for this divergent approach between general regulation, which the Court has sought to police, and securities regulation, which the Court has left alone? Some scholars have argued that the Supreme Court is simply uninterested in securities regulation, but the Court now hears proportionately more securities cases than it once did. Others dispute the premise that the Court supports corporate America. And, of course, the Roberts Court could change its approach to securities regulation in time. But I think the divergence suggests that the Court wants to police public rights and rights against the state but is less interested in reformulating the standards for private disputes, such as disputes between shareholders and managers.