In the wake of the SCOTUS decision regarding Chevron deference, I investigate this issue. Here is a summary of academic research on Supreme Court views on these topics, separate from whether fiat money as currently established in the United States as unconstitutional (e.g., see here<\/a>). I also defer discussion on whether the Federal Reserve is constitutional<\/a>.<\/p>\n However, we can infer from recent experience that members of SCOTUS as currently composed will determine with care the proper definitions for price stability and full employment, as exemplified by Justice Gorsuch\u2019s acute understanding of the financial regulatory framework in noting the role of the \u201cSecurity and Exchange Commission\u201d, and the environmental implications of pollutants, including \u201cnitrous oxide\u201d [Forbes]<\/a>.<\/p>\n Since Justice Gorsuch has declared himself (as have others) as textualists, it suggests to me that if he were to be internally consistent in his rulings, he would assert price stability and full employment require:<\/p>\n for all time periods, where p<\/em> is probably CPI, and u<\/em> is the civilian unemployment rate. The current unemployment rate is 4.0%. It shouldn\u2019t be too hard for the Supreme Court to determine how to get u<\/em>=0 and the first time derivative of p<\/em> equal to 0 simultaneously.<\/p>\n For more discussion on Justice Gorsuch\u2019s views on how much deference should be accorded to administrative agencies, see here<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n <\/p>\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/econbrowser.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/supremcteqns.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n