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.


Trump Says He Will Visit Turkey and Return to China in 2026
Carney, Trump Hold Detailed Trade Talks as USMCA Future Faces Uncertainty
JD Vance Rebukes Israeli Critics of Iran Deal, Defends Trump’s Middle East Strategy
Meta Seeks Legal Shield From Child-Harm Lawsuits Amid KOSA Talks
Brazil Supreme Court Convicts Eduardo Bolsonaro Over U.S. Lobbying Efforts
Trump Administration Urges Judge to Allow UFC Event on White House Lawn
Italy’s ITA Airways Weighs Legal Action Against Pratt & Whitney Over Grounded Airbus Fleet
ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan Suspended as Member States Consider Removal
US Appeals Court Keeps Trump’s 10% Global Tariff in Effect During Ongoing Legal Battle
DOJ Sues UCLA Over Alleged Antisemitism and Hostile Campus Environment
U.S. Reinstates Sanctions on U.N. Expert Francesca Albanese Amid Legal Battle
Biden Sues DOJ to Block Release of Audio From Classified Documents Probe
Trump Heads to Camp David for High-Stakes Iran Talks and Policy Meetings
US Appeals Court Allows Trump Military Enlistment Ban on Transgender Recruits, Protects Current Service Members
HSBC Australia Faces A$35M Penalty Over Scam Protection Failures
DOJ Clears Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger Without Conditions
Trump-Iran Interim Agreement Extends Ceasefire as G7 Leaders Welcome Path to Peace 



