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.


Nighttime Shelling Causes Serious Damage in Russia’s Belgorod Region Near Ukraine Border
Federal Judge Restores Funding for Gateway Rail Tunnel Project
Google Halts UK YouTube TV Measurement Service After Legal Action
California Sues Trump Administration Over Federal Authority on Sable Offshore Pipelines
U.S.-India Trade Framework Signals Major Shift in Tariffs, Energy, and Supply Chains
Trump Signs Executive Order Threatening 25% Tariffs on Countries Trading With Iran
TrumpRx Website Launches to Offer Discounted Prescription Drugs for Cash-Paying Americans
Ohio Man Indicted for Alleged Threat Against Vice President JD Vance, Faces Additional Federal Charges
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case
U.S. Sanctions on Russia Could Expand as Ukraine Peace Talks Continue, Says Treasury Secretary Bessent
Newly Released DOJ Epstein Files Expose High-Profile Connections Across Politics and Business
Trump Family Files $10 Billion Lawsuit Over IRS Tax Disclosure
Federal Reserve Faces Subpoena Delay Amid Investigation Into Chair Jerome Powell
Trump Signs “America First Arms Transfer Strategy” to Prioritize U.S. Weapons Sales
Trump Endorses Japan’s Sanae Takaichi Ahead of Crucial Election Amid Market and China Tensions
Trump Lifts 25% Tariff on Indian Goods in Strategic U.S.–India Trade and Energy Deal 



