Odd Lots · Friday, July 17, 2026
Lev Menand and Nathan Tankus analyze the Supreme Court's decision to preserve the Federal Reserve's independence through a 'Hamilton exception,' distinguishing it from the FTC and other agencies. They argue that this carve-out, rooted in a contentious interpretation of history and tradition, highlights a broader judicial trend to dismantle the administrative state, potentially leaving the Fed as an isolated entity with questionable long-term security.
“And so the Hamilton exception. We must do what Hamilton says. We must do what Hamilton says.”
“The huge mistake that they're making, just a fundamental logical failure here, is that the First Bank of the United States, which is what Alexander Hamilton was advocating for was a investor owned commercial bank. It was not in any way abrogating the president's rights to remove executive officers.”
“This is a known thing. Why not make an argument that no monetary policy is fiscal policy. Fiscal policy is Congress, and therefore it's just not like these other things.”