The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to allow President Donald Trump to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, delivering a decisive blow to the Republican president's attempt to challenge the central bank's cherished independence. In a 5-4 ruling, the court blocked Trump's removal of Cook for now, providing a safeguard for the Fed even as it expanded presidential authority over other federal agencies in a separate landmark decision.
Ruling Details and Procedural Protections
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the opinion, stated that Trump had failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute. Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the president laid against her. Roberts was joined by fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the court's three liberal justices. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
Trump had cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations in his attempt to oust Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor. Cook denied the allegations, calling them a pretext to remove her for monetary policy differences. The court emphasized that its ruling did not decide the validity of the factual dispute, which can now return to lower courts where action has been stalled.
Historical Context and Fed Independence
Roberts canvassed the history of the Federal Reserve System and its predecessor central banks, including the Bank of North America and the First and Second Banks of the United States. He stressed that all have featured independence from the president to shield monetary policy from political interference. "Like the directors of its three predecessors, however, the Federal Reserve's Governors do not serve at the president's pleasure — they instead serve staggered 14-year terms, and may be removed only 'for cause,'" Roberts wrote. "We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our nation's (and the world's) most important financial institutions."
Cook's Response
Cook welcomed the court's decision, saying it affirms the Fed's obligation to make policy decisions independently. "This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people," Cook said.
Trump's Reaction
Trump reacted on social media, writing: "The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability to sit on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!"
Separate Ruling on Presidential Powers
In a separate 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court backed Trump's firing of Democratic Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, overturning a 1935 precedent known as Humphrey's Executor v. United States. That ruling expanded presidential authority to fire leaders of other US agencies. Trump called that decision "one of the most important ever given with respect to Presidential Powers."
Impact on Fed Independence
Trump's targeting of Cook and a separate criminal investigation against then-Fed Chair Jerome Powell, which was later dropped, represented the biggest challenge to the central bank's independence since its founding. The Fed is the world's most important central bank, determining the cost of credit for the United States and beyond. Cook helps set US monetary policy with the rest of the seven-member board and the heads of the 12 regional Fed banks. Her term was due to run until 2038. She was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden in 2022.
Legal and Procedural Questions
While Monday's ruling did not define exactly what could constitute the "cause" for removal, Roberts said that the Fed's history and independence suggested it should be a "substantial threshold." "Without such constraints in place, any perceived or alleged misstep (past or present) could provide a ready pretext for a governor's removal — a fact that he would surely know, and that would surely weigh on him as he decided what to say and how to vote," Roberts wrote. "Nothing could be more corrosive of the independence that Congress sought to preserve."
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Thomas, in a dissenting opinion, said the president can remove Cook "for any reason he wants and by any procedure he wants," arguing that any statute hindering such power is unconstitutional. Justice Barrett faulted the ruling for settling the question based on a "conclusory analogy" to predecessor central banks. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also criticized the ruling's scope.
Background and Timeline
Trump sought to fire Cook on August 25, 2025, by posting a termination letter on social media citing allegations disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Trump appointee. Pulte wrote on social media on Monday, "As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud." He asked the Justice Department last year to open a criminal investigation, but there has been no indication of any such investigation moving forward. US District Judge Jia Cobb in September ruled that Trump's attempt to remove Cook without notice or a hearing likely violated her right to due process. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined Trump's request to put Cobb's order on hold.
