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.


Pentagon Halts Planned U.S. Troop Deployment to Poland Amid Europe Force Review
US Trade Court Blocks Trump’s 10% Global Tariffs
Elon Musk’s China Influence Faces New Challenges Amid Rising EV Competition
Russian Border Drone Attack Leaves One Dead in Belgorod Region
DOJ Ends Probe Into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Boosting Kevin Warsh Confirmation Prospects
Taiwan Court Fines Tokyo Electron Unit $4.78M in Major TSMC Trade Secrets Case
Rubio Urges China to Release Jimmy Lai and Political Prisoners
Trump DOJ Accuses Yale Medical School of Racial Bias in Admissions
Federal Appeals Court Allows Texas SB4 Immigration Law Enforcement to Proceed
ICC Pressure Mounts as Families of Duterte Drug War Victims Demand Justice
US Plans Imminent Indictment of Cuba’s Raul Castro Over 1996 Plane Shootdown
Arcadia Mayor Eileen Wang Pleads Guilty in China Foreign Agent Case
DOJ May Drop Gautam Adani Fraud Charges Amid $10 Billion U.S. Investment Plan
Trump-Xi Summit Sparks Renewed Hope for Americans Detained in China
Trump Faces Uphill Battle Seeking China’s Help on Iran Conflict
Russia Launches Massive Drone Attack on Ukraine, NATO Allies Respond
Judge Rules Use of Military Lawyers in Civilian Prosecutions Is Lawful 



