Justices question presidential powers and warn against undermining central bank independence
The US Supreme Court on Wednesday signalled deep scepticism over Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to fire Lisa Cook, raising concerns that such a move could severely undermine the independence of the Federal Reserve.
During nearly two hours of oral arguments, justices across ideological lines appeared reluctant to grant the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower court order that blocks Cook’s removal while her legal challenge proceeds. The case marks the first time a US president has sought to oust a Federal Reserve governor since the central bank was created in 1913.
Several justices questioned the administration’s assertion that the president has broad, largely unreviewable authority to remove a Fed official. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that such a position would “weaken, if not shatter,” the Fed’s independence, cautioning that it could encourage presidents to rely on trivial or difficult-to-disprove allegations to justify removals.
Trump has cited mortgage fraud allegations against Cook as grounds for her dismissal—claims she has denied. The allegations relate to conduct before Cook joined the Fed.
A federal district judge ruled in September that Trump’s attempt to remove her without notice or a hearing likely violated her constitutional right to due process and that the allegations did not appear to meet the legal standard of “cause” required to remove a Fed governor. An appeals court later declined to put that ruling on hold.
The justices also pressed the administration on why Cook was not given an opportunity to formally respond to the allegations. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether Cook had any meaningful chance to be heard, while conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said it would not have been burdensome for the administration to present evidence and allow Cook to respond. Chief Justice John Roberts likewise expressed doubts about the claim that a president’s determination of “cause” is beyond judicial review.
Arguing for the administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the allegations called into question Cook’s fitness to serve as a Fed governor and justified her immediate removal. But several justices appeared unconvinced, probing whether the courts have a role in reviewing such decisions and whether reinstatement would be possible if a removal were found unlawful.
Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, argued that Congress intentionally designed the Fed as a uniquely insulated institution and that allowing easy removal of governors would defeat the purpose of those protections.
Cook, who attended the hearing, said in a statement afterward that the case is fundamentally about whether US monetary policy will be guided by independent judgment or political pressure.
Her term as a Fed governor runs until 2038. She was appointed in 2022 and is the first Black woman to serve on the central bank’s board.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June. The decision could have far-reaching implications for the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal institutions.
End of Article
Leave a Reply