A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Trump-aligned group against the Federal Reserve, ending a contentious legal battle over transparency requirements at the nation’s central bank. The suit, filed by the Conservative Coalition for Financial Accountability, claimed the Fed violated the Government in the Sunshine Act by holding closed-door meetings without proper public notice.
Judge Eleanor Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled yesterday that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient standing or provide evidence of specific violations. “The court cannot substitute speculation for substantive evidence of wrongdoing,” Martinez wrote in her 27-page opinion.
The lawsuit represented the latest in a series of challenges to Federal Reserve operations from conservative groups who argue the central bank operates with too little oversight. Federal Reserve Chair Powell has consistently defended the bank’s practices as compliant with all legal requirements while balancing the need for deliberative processes.
“This ruling reaffirms the careful balance struck by Congress between transparency and the Fed’s need for candid internal deliberations,” said Michael Barr, Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision, in a statement released after the decision.
The Sunshine Act, passed in 1976, requires that meetings of government agencies be open to public observation unless specifically exempted. The Federal Reserve has long maintained that its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) discussions require confidentiality to prevent market disruptions.
Former Treasury official Peter Conti-Brown, now at the University of Pennsylvania, told me the ruling makes sense from a legal perspective. “The plaintiffs couldn’t point to specific instances where the Fed clearly violated the law,” he said. “Their complaint essentially amounted to disagreement with the Fed’s monetary policy rather than procedural violations.”
The Conservative Coalition for Financial Accountability, founded in 2020 with reported connections to former Trump administration officials, issued a statement expressing disappointment with the ruling. “Americans deserve to know how decisions affecting their economic futures are made,” the statement read. “We’re evaluating our options for appeal.”
According to data from the Federal Reserve, the FOMC published minutes from all eight of its meetings last year, with full transcripts released after a five-year delay. This practice, established in the 1990s, provides significant transparency while protecting sensitive deliberations.
My reporting on Federal Reserve transparency issues spans two decades, and I’ve observed increasing pressure from both political parties for greater openness. The Fed has gradually expanded its communications, including holding press conferences after policy meetings and publishing economic projections.
The court decision comes amid increasing politicization of the Federal Reserve. Former President Trump frequently criticized Powell during his administration, while conservative lawmakers have introduced multiple bills to subject the Fed to more congressional oversight.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 64% of Americans believe the Federal Reserve should be more transparent about its decision-making processes. However, 58% also expressed concern about political interference in monetary policy.
The economic stakes are substantial. Federal Reserve decisions on interest rates directly impact mortgage costs, business loans, and ultimately employment levels across the economy. The central bank raised rates aggressively in 2022 and 2023 to combat inflation, drawing criticism from both progressive and conservative corners.
Financial markets showed little reaction to the court decision, with major indices remaining stable in trading today. “Markets have long since priced in the Fed’s operational independence,” said Janet Morrison, chief economist at Capital Investment Partners. “This ruling maintains the status quo.”
The lawsuit’s dismissal doesn’t end debates about Federal Reserve transparency. Representative Thomas Wilson (R-Ohio) has introduced legislation that would subject more Fed meetings to public disclosure requirements. The Federal Reserve Accountability Act has gained 47 co-sponsors but faces uncertain prospects in the divided Congress.
For everyday Americans, the ruling means Federal Reserve operations will continue unchanged for now. Interest rate decisions will still be announced publicly, but the deliberations leading to those decisions will remain private until the release of meeting minutes and transcripts.
Despite today’s court defeat, conservative challenges to Federal Reserve independence show no signs of abating as the 2026 midterm elections approach. The central bank’s policies will likely remain a political flashpoint as Americans continue to feel the effects of inflation and interest rate adjustments in their daily lives.
Sources:
