Azoria Capital CEO Slams Powell as "Money Launderer" as Lawsuit Rushes to Emergency Hearing
- Why Is Azoria Capital Suing the Federal Reserve?
- How Did the Court Respond?
- What’s the Fed’s Argument for Secrecy?
- Could This Lawsuit Reshape Market Reactions?
- What Would Public FOMC Meetings Reveal?
- FAQs: The Fed Transparency Lawsuit Explained
The CEO of Azoria Capital, James Fishback, has launched a scathing legal attack on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, accusing the Fed of operating in secrecy and violating federal transparency laws. The lawsuit, which demands the Fed open its FOMC meetings to the public, has been fast-tracked to an emergency hearing just one day before the next policy meeting. Fishback argues that Wall Street is "asleep" to the potential market upheaval if the court rules in his favor. This case could redefine how the Fed communicates its decisions—and expose the political biases lurking behind closed doors.
Why Is Azoria Capital Suing the Federal Reserve?
James Fishback, CEO of investment firm Azoria Capital, filed a federal complaint in Washington D.C. on Thursday morning, demanding the Federal Reserve stop holding its Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings behind closed doors. The lawsuit cites the 1976 Government in the Sunshine Act, which requires multi-member federal decision-making bodies to conduct business publicly. Fishback is pushing for next week’s FOMC meeting—scheduled to begin a two-day session on Tuesday—to be broadcast live. "They’re violating federal law and operating in secrecy," Fishback declared. "The American people deserve to see how these decisions are made because they’re the ones paying the price."
How Did the Court Respond?
Judge Barl Howard, an Obama appointee, granted an emergency hearing for Monday—just 24 hours before the FOMC convenes. The case,, seeks a temporary restraining order to block Tuesday’s meeting unless the Fed opens it to the public. Fishback dismantled the Fed’s legal defense that the Sunshine Act doesn’t apply to the FOMC because it’s merely a "subdivision" of the central bank. "They admit the Fed is covered by the law," he said. "So how does the most powerful part of the institution—the rate-setting body—get a free pass?" He called this a "fake carve-out" designed to evade transparency.
What’s the Fed’s Argument for Secrecy?
The Fed has long claimed that public meetings could trigger financial speculation. Fishback dismissed this as a 50-year-old excuse: "You can’t hide every meeting indefinitely using the same rationale. That’s not a legal exemption—it’s a loophole." He pointed out the hypocrisy in Powell’s public interviews and meeting minutes. "In January 2022, Powell told reporters there wouldn’t be a rate hike at the next meeting. If that didn’t fuel speculation, what does? Most tapering decisions happen without hearings. The fact that Judge Howard wants to hear Powell’s lawyers on Monday is a huge problem for them."
Could This Lawsuit Reshape Market Reactions?
Fishback warned that Wall Street is underestimating the case’s potential impact. "Traders are still asleep. They don’t think this will happen." If the judge issues the restraining order, he predicts the Fed will delay the meeting briefly and announce a livestream. "They’ll have no choice. Defying a federal judge on transparency looks terrible." He also criticized the Fed’s taxpayer-funded building renovations as "wasteful," arguing those same taxpayers should see inside. "Right now, markets guess based on Powell’s tie color or his word choices at press conferences. A public feed WOULD shift volatility to Tuesday—when viewers could watch debates unfold in real time."
What Would Public FOMC Meetings Reveal?
A livestream would expose voting dynamics rarely seen outside the Fed’s "black box." Fishback expects clear political leanings among members: "You won’t hear someone say, ‘Trump said this, so I’ll vote that way.’ But you’ll see biases in how they react to inflation or tariffs." He singled out Governor Chris Waller’s likely dissent: "Normally, you’d just see his name on the statement. Public sessions would show who’s pushing back against him." Such transparency, Fishback argues, would fundamentally change how markets understand Fed decisions—from a scripted performance to a raw debate.
FAQs: The Fed Transparency Lawsuit Explained
What is the Sunshine Act?
Passed in 1976, this law requires federal agencies with multi-member decision bodies to hold public meetings. Fishback claims the FOMC—which sets interest rates eight times yearly—qualifies.
Why now?
Fishback says decades of Fed opacity have left markets reliant on "reading tea leaves" from press conferences rather than observing actual deliberations.
What’s the worst-case scenario for markets?
If the Fed is forced to debate rate hikes publicly, real-time reactions could spike volatility as traders parse members’ biases mid-meeting.
Has the Fed ever lost a transparency case?
No. The central bank has successfully argued that monetary policy requires confidentiality to avoid destabilizing markets.
