Supreme Court says not so fast to Trump’s attempt to fire Fed Bank’s first Black governor Lisa Cook
TheGrio...
Despite granting the president broad authority to fire individuals in independent agencies, the high court ruled that Lisa Cook’s case had a higher bar for termination.
The Supreme Court rejected President Donald Trump‘s appeal to fire Lisa Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Bank Board of Governors, arguing that he denied her due process and that the attempt to remove her runs contrary to the Fed’s constitutional independence.
In its ruling in Trump v. Cook, the majority of the high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Brett Kavanaugh, ruled that Cook can, for now, keep her job at the Federal Bank Board of Governors, where she is currently serving a 14-year term that expires in 2038.
Cook was nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 2022.
After months of complaining about the Federal Reserve’s decision not to cut interest rates in an effort to tame the U.S. economy’s persistent inflation, President Trump announced on Aug. 25, 2025, that Cook “must resign, now!!!” and later told reporters that he would “fire her if she doesn’t resign.”
Days earlier, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte shared a letter on social media addressed to then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud. Without evidence, Pulte, a Trump loyalist, alleged that Cook “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms” in 2021 by claiming two homes simultaneously as her principal residence.
Attorneys for Cook, who refused to resign as demanded, maintained her innocence and filed an unprecedented lawsuit to block her firing. After a U.S. District Court ruled in her favor, the Trump administration filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the court to grant a stay, or legal pause, of the lower court’s decision to allow Cook to remain on the job as the legal process plays out on appeal.
A majority of the court, comprising both conservative and liberal justices, ruled that the constitutional constraints laid out by the framers and Congress prevent Trump from firing Cook without cause and from denying her the opportunity to defend herself, either formally or informally. The ruling ran contrary to another ruling the court issued on Monday, Trump v. Slaughter, which set a new precedent allowing a president broad authority to terminate individuals in executive branch independent agencies.
“Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her ‘by argument however brief, and, if need be, by proof, however informal,’ may a final decision be made. And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,” reads the majority opinion authored by Justice Roberts.
Unlike in Trump v. Slaughter, the court sets a higher bar for such firings of members of an independent bank, such as the Federal Reserve, given its unique role in setting monetary policy that has broader implications for the U.S. economy. However, the court did not rule on the merits of Trump’s accusations against Cook, as the administration has failed to produce any documented proof of alleged misconduct that would preclude her from doing her job as Fed governor.
“Fed independence is critical to a strong and growing economy, and the court today rejected President Trump’s reckless and illegal attempt to interfere with the Fed’s autonomy,” said Michael Negron, senior fellow for economic opportunity at the Center for American Progress, in a statement.
“The Trump administration’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, as well as its unfounded criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell, are blatant abuses of power to target political enemies at the expense of democracy and economic stability,” he added. “The Fed must be allowed to independently make monetary policy decisions according to economic data and objectives and free from political influence and interference.”
Despite the ruling in Cook’s favor, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised a separate issue in her concurring opinion that was not determined by the court’s majority: the argument made that by not granting him authority to immediately fire Cook as litigation plays out, it presents irreparable harm to him as president.
“The thought that the President suffers a comparable level of harm simply because he is temporarily unable to remove Cook from office is “facially absurd,” wrote Jackson, the first Black woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. “I join the Court in reaching a merits conclusion in this case. Still, on the most important stay considerations (the risk of irreparable harm and the equities) this application is not a close call. The Government misses the mark by a mile.”
Justice Jackson concluded that the Trump administration’s “merits arguments are unlikely to succeed.”
Jackson made a similar argument in April during rare public remarks, condemning the conservative majority’s repeated emergency rulings in Trump’s favor on the basis of the administration’s claims of harm from being unable to carry out his agenda, even if said actions may be illegal.
Laying out the broader consequences, if Trump had been allowed to carry out his termination of Cook, Justice Jackson writes, “…the public’s interest is not served if a President can intimidate members of the Federal Reserve into doing his bidding. Experience has taught that high inflation, price variability, and, ultimately, financial panic can result when the Federal Reserve is subjected to rank politicization.”
The Harvard Law-educated justice added, “Indeed, even the mere perception of partisan influence over that body can trigger these disastrous consequences.”