The Trump administration has formally requested the Supreme Court to intervene and pause a ruling from a federal judge that allows Lisa Cook, a governor on the Federal Reserve Board, to remain in her position. This request follows President Trump’s effort to terminate Cook’s appointment due to allegations of mortgage fraud stemming from her actions prior to joining the board, which she denies. The administration’s argument hinges on claims that the judge’s ruling—made by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb—hampers the President’s authority to remove Federal Reserve governors “for cause.”
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer emphasized that Judge Cobb’s decision represents inappropriate judicial interference with executive power, specifically the President’s prerogative to dismiss members of the Federal Reserve. The timing of this request is notable, occurring just after the Federal Reserve’s September meeting where interest rates were cut for the first time since December 2024.
Established by Congress in 1913, the Federal Reserve serves as the central bank of the United States, tasked with vital economic objectives. It operates with a seven-member Board of Governors, where members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to conduct monetary policy independent from political influence. The Federal Reserve Act stipulates that governors can only be removed by the President “for cause.”
In 2023, Cook was nominated by then-President Joe Biden to serve a 14-year term, but the Trump administration contends she should be removed due to alleged fraud involving multiple mortgage agreements signed before her board appointment. Specifically, accusations claim that Cook falsely asserted two properties as her primary residences in a short time frame.
Trump officially attempted to terminate Cook’s position via a letter, citing her alleged conduct as a valid reason for removal. Cook subsequently challenged her firing in court, leading to Judge Cobb’s Sept. 9 ruling that found Cook likely to succeed in her argument that she was wrongly dismissed. Cobb highlighted that her removal did not follow the proper grounds set forth in the Federal Reserve Act, as the allegations relate to conduct occurring before her tenure on the board.
Cobb’s ruling also referred to potential violations of Cook’s Fifth Amendment rights, asserting that she had a property interest in her role as a governor and was entitled to due process protections prior to her removal.
In the wake of Cobb’s decision, the Trump administration sought a stay from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed Cobb’s ruling in a split decision. Judge Bradley Garcia concurred with Cobb’s assessment that Cook was likely not afforded adequate due process regarding her dismissal. He stressed that the considerations are significantly different from past cases where the Supreme Court allowed the President to remove agency heads without similar constitutional claims.
Judge Gregory Katsas, dissenting, argued for the administration’s view that the President has broad authority and that the allegations against Cook justified her removal under the Federal Reserve Act.
The Solicitor General reiterated the administration’s position that Cook’s interests do not warrant the same protections as lower-level civil servants. In a 38-page argument, Sauer insisted that Cook’s alleged actions cannot be deemed grounds for removal under the “for cause” requirement, positing that the issue must hinge on the President’s determination of competence.
As the matter sits with the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily stayed a similar lower court ruling in another case involving an FTC appointee removed by Trump, indicating a possible implications for how the Court may proceed with Cook’s case.
