U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday signaled strong skepticism toward President Donald Trump’s unprecedented effort to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, raising serious questions about presidential power and the independence of the central bank. During nearly two hours of oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices indicated they were unlikely to grant the Trump administration’s request to lift a lower court order blocking Cook’s immediate dismissal while her legal challenge proceeds.
Since the Federal Reserve was established in 1913, no U.S. president has attempted to fire a sitting Fed governor, making this case historically significant. The justices grappled with complex legal issues that lack clear precedent, including what qualifies as “cause” for removal under federal law and whether due process protections apply to Fed officials. Their questions reflected unease about the broader economic and institutional consequences of allowing a president to remove a central bank official based on disputed allegations.
Trump has sought to oust Cook over claims of mortgage fraud, allegations she has denied and which stem from actions that allegedly occurred before she joined the Fed. Several justices expressed concern that Cook was not given formal notice or a meaningful opportunity to respond before the president announced her firing on social media. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned that the administration’s position could “shatter” the Federal Reserve’s independence by allowing presidents to rely on weak or unproven accusations to remove officials they disagree with on monetary policy.
Lower courts have already found Trump’s actions likely violated Cook’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and failed to meet the legal standard for removing a Fed governor. Chief Justice John Roberts and others also questioned the administration’s claim that the president’s determination of “cause” is beyond judicial review.
Cook, appointed in 2022 and the first Black woman to serve as a Fed governor, said the case ultimately concerns whether U.S. interest rate policy will be guided by independent judgment or political pressure. A Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June, with potentially far-reaching implications for presidential authority, central bank independence, and the future balance of power in U.S. economic governance.


ICC Says Darfur War Crimes Probe Reaches Breakthrough in Sudan Investigation
UN Says Hamas Disrupted Gaza Aid Distribution, Group Denies Allegations
Iran Says It Closes Strait of Hormuz After Warning Shot at Vessel
UK Sanctions 24 Russian-Linked Targets Over Cyberattacks and Election Interference
Iranian Missile Strike on UAE Oil Tankers Kills Indian Crew Member in Strait of Hormuz
Trump Recommends Darline Graham for Interim South Carolina Senate Seat
New Mexico AG Accuses DOJ of Delaying Jeffrey Epstein Ranch Investigation
Sara Duterte Impeachment Trial Opens, Putting 2028 Philippine Election in Focus
Western Allies Push for More Air Defenses for Ukraine at Paris Summit
Trump Administration Hands Over Key Evidence in Minnesota Immigration Shooting Investigations
Ann Widdecombe Murder: Police Arrest Second Suspect, Rule Out Terrorism Motive
Israeli Strikes Kill Six in Gaza as Ceasefire Talks Continue in Cairo
EU Weighs New Trade Restrictions on Israeli West Bank Settlements
Trump Administration Sues Maryland Over Alleged Sanctuary Immigration Policies
Trump Administration Bars U.S. Travelers From Congo Flights Amid Ebola Outbreak
EU Ministers Split as Support Grows for Ban on Trade With Israeli West Bank Settlements
Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Faces Lawsuit From 12 States 



