On Tuesday, a coalition of major banks and business groups filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Reserve, challenging the legality of the central bank’s annual “stress tests” that assess the financial resilience of Wall Street firms. The plaintiffs, including the Bank Policy Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Bankers Association, argue that the Fed’s current methodology for determining capital requirements based on hypothetical economic scenarios does not adhere to proper administrative procedures.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, asserts that the Fed’s stress testing practices violate the law, particularly in relation to transparency and accountability. The core of the complaint centers around the confidential models and economic scenarios used by the Fed to evaluate the banks’ performance. These tests, which have been a fixture of the banking landscape since the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, are designed to simulate extreme economic conditions and ensure that banks maintain sufficient capital buffers to withstand economic shocks.
At the heart of the dispute is a call for greater transparency. The plaintiffs are urging the Federal Reserve to disclose the models it uses in its stress testing process and open them to public feedback. While the groups are not seeking to eliminate the stress tests altogether, they argue that the process needs to be more transparent, objective, and responsive to external scrutiny. Rob Nichols, President and CEO of the American Bankers Association, stated, “The opaque nature of these tests undermines their value for providing meaningful insights into bank resilience.”
The lawsuit comes in the wake of a landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that restricted the powers of federal agencies, particularly in their ability to interpret laws. In the June decision, the Court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which had long allowed federal agencies to exercise broad interpretive authority over ambiguous statutes. This shift has led to increasing scrutiny over regulatory practices, including the Federal Reserve’s handling of stress tests.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, which was enacted following the global financial crisis, mandates that the Federal Reserve assess the capital adequacy of major financial institutions. However, the groups challenging the Fed argue that the specific capital requirements derived from the stress tests and the tests themselves are not explicitly prescribed by law.
Despite the Fed’s recent acknowledgment of the need for some changes in response to ongoing legal and regulatory developments, including potential revisions to the stress testing framework for the 2025 exams, the plaintiffs have decided to move forward with the lawsuit. The Fed declined to comment on the lawsuit at this time.
“These tests, which banks have criticized for years as being opaque and subjective, play a central role in the U.S. financial system,” said a spokesperson for the Bank Policy Institute. “The results of these tests determine critical decisions regarding capital reserves, dividend payouts, and stock buybacks, all of which impact the stability of the financial system.”
As the litigation unfolds, the banking industry remains firm in its position that the stress testing process must be more open and equitable. The outcome of the lawsuit could have significant implications for the future of regulatory oversight of U.S. financial institutions and the balance of power between federal agencies and the businesses they regulate.
Read more: