Below you will find pages that utilize the taxonomy term “Federal Reserve”
Federal Reserve Act
Federal Reserve Act (1913)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. § 221 et seq.)
2) Why It Was Done
Enacted to create a central banking system for the United States. The Act established the Federal Reserve System to provide a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before 1913, the U.S. lacked a true central bank. Banking panics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, especially the Panic of 1907, exposed the need for a lender of last resort and coordinated monetary policy.
Emergency Banking Act
Emergency Banking Act (1933)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. § 95)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed during the Great Depression after a banking panic, the Act gave President Franklin D. Roosevelt emergency powers to stabilize the financial system, reopen banks, and restrict gold transactions.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Prior banking laws had no mechanism for nationwide bank closures or emergency authority. The Act temporarily curtailed private property rights in gold to protect the financial system.
Glass–Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933)
Glass–Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. §§ 24, 78, 377, 378)
2) Why It Was Done
Enacted during the Great Depression, the Act aimed to restore trust in the financial system by separating commercial and investment banking and creating the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before this Act, banks could engage in both deposit-taking and speculative investment, contributing to the 1929 stock market crash. The Act imposed structural restrictions on banks but did not directly override constitutional rights.
Gold Reserve Act
Gold Reserve Act (1934)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (31 U.S.C. §§ 5116–5118)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed in the aftermath of the Great Depression and following the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, this Act transferred ownership of all monetary gold to the U.S. Treasury and gave the federal government control over gold reserves. It also authorized the President to devalue the dollar relative to gold.
Employment Act
Employment Act (1946)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (15 U.S.C. §§ 1021–1022)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed after World War II to ensure economic stability, the Act declared it the policy of the federal government to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power. It aimed to prevent another depression and manage the postwar economic transition.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before this Act, there was no statutory requirement for the federal government to pursue full employment or economic growth. The Act was based on Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.
IMF Second Amendment Implementation Act (End of Gold Standard)
IMF Second Amendment Implementation Act (1976)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (Pub. L. 94–564)
2) Why It Was Done
This Act ratified U.S. participation in the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) Second Amendment, which followed the Jamaica Accords of 1976. It formally abandoned the gold standard, authorized floating exchange rates, and eliminated gold’s role in the international monetary system.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Prior to this Act, the Bretton Woods system still nominally tied the U.S. dollar to gold for foreign governments, even after President Nixon suspended convertibility in 1971. This law permanently severed that tie, ending the last statutory role for gold in U.S. currency.
Federal Reserve Reform Act
Federal Reserve Reform Act (1977)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. §§ 225a, 263, 610)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed in the wake of the 1970s stagflation crisis, the Act clarified the Federal Reserve’s responsibilities, strengthened oversight, and set policy goals for monetary stability, employment, and growth.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
Before this Act, the Federal Reserve’s mandate was less explicit. This law formalized a “dual mandate” of employment and price stability under Congress’s constitutional power over money.
Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (Humphrey–Hawkins Act)
Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act (Humphrey–Hawkins Act, 1978)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (15 U.S.C. §§ 3101–3151)
2) Why It Was Done
Enacted during the economic turmoil of the 1970s (stagflation, high unemployment, and inflation), the Act built on the Employment Act of 1946 by setting explicit goals for reducing unemployment and inflation, while requiring the Federal Reserve to coordinate with Congress.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
The Employment Act of 1946 established a general commitment to economic stability. Humphrey–Hawkins expanded this by imposing numerical targets and mandatory reporting, grounded in Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA)
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act (DIDMCA, 1980)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. §§ 226 note, 3501 et seq.)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed amid high inflation and interest rate volatility, the Act sought to modernize banking, improve monetary control, and promote competition. It phased out interest rate caps on deposits, expanded the Federal Reserve’s authority, and gave all banks access to Fed services.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA, TARP)
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA, 2008)
1) Link to the Text of the Act
Read the statute (12 U.S.C. §§ 5201–5261)
2) Why It Was Done
Passed during the 2008 financial crisis, the Act authorized the U.S. Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of troubled assets through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to stabilize banks and credit markets.
3) Pre-existing Law or Constitutional Rights
No prior law gave the Treasury such sweeping authority to buy private financial assets. Critics argued it pushed the limits of the Commerce Clause and blurred the line between public and private finance, but it did not directly override constitutional rights.