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.


Norway Opens Corruption Probe Into Former PM and Nobel Committee Chair Thorbjoern Jagland Over Epstein Links
California Sues Trump Administration Over Federal Authority on Sable Offshore Pipelines
Panama Supreme Court Voids Hong Kong Firm’s Panama Canal Port Contracts Over Constitutional Violations
U.S. Lawmakers to Review Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein DOJ Files Starting Monday
U.S. Announces Additional $6 Million in Humanitarian Aid to Cuba Amid Oil Sanctions and Fuel Shortages
Panama Supreme Court Voids CK Hutchison Port Concessions, Raising Geopolitical and Trade Concerns
Trump Administration Sued Over Suspension of Critical Hudson River Tunnel Funding
Trump Signs Executive Order Threatening 25% Tariffs on Countries Trading With Iran
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding
U.S. Condemns South Africa’s Expulsion of Israeli Diplomat Amid Rising Diplomatic Tensions
Court Allows Expert Testimony Linking Johnson & Johnson Talc Products to Ovarian Cancer
Meta Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Approval of AI Chatbots Allowing Sexual Interactions With Minors
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District
Ohio Man Indicted for Alleged Threat Against Vice President JD Vance, Faces Additional Federal Charges
TrumpRx Website Launches to Offer Discounted Prescription Drugs for Cash-Paying Americans
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Move to End TPS for Haitian Immigrants
Iran–U.S. Nuclear Talks in Oman Face Major Hurdles Amid Rising Regional Tensions 



