The Supreme Court has agreed to review the high-profile case of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook but deferred President Donald Trump’s request for her immediate removal from the Board of Governors pending oral arguments in January.
The two-sentence, unsigned Supreme Court order issued Wednesday allows Cook to continue serving on the Fed’s board and its 12-member rate-setting committee for now. The Fed has two remaining policy meetings in 2025, slotted for October and December.
The court’s deferral of Trump’s application to stay a lower court’s temporary restraining order represents a significant legal setback for the president. Trump moved to fire Cook on Aug. 25, writing in a two-page letter that he had determined there was “sufficient cause to remove you from your position.”
Trump’s basis for the attempted firing was a criminal referral made to the Department of Justice by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who alleged Cook fraudulently claimed homes in two states as her primary residence.
Cook denied those claims and sued to keep her job. Both a U.S. district court judge and a federal appeals court ruled in Cook’s favor, allowing her to attend the Fed’s September meeting. DOJ attorneys representing Trump appealed the matter to the Supreme Court in September.
Abbe David Lowell of Lowell & Associates — Cook’s lead attorney — and Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, who is also representing the Fed governor, wrote in a joint statement provided to Scotsman Guide: “The Court’s decision rightly allows Governor Cook to continue in her role on the Federal Reserve Board, and we look forward to further proceedings consistent with the Court’s order.”
Cook’s case has sparked debate about Federal Reserve independence and what, if any, limitations there are on a U.S. president’s ability to fire a Fed governor.
Trump’s attorneys have accused the lower courts of “improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority,” in legal filings, arguing that “so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination of ‘some cause relating to the conduct, ability, fitness, or competence of the officer’ is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”
Cook’s lawyers have countered that a Fed governor can only be removed for ineligibility or inefficiency, neglect or malfeasance in office. They claimed in court filings that the “flimsy, unproven allegations of pre-office wrongdoing” do not meet “for cause” standards.
Since the Cook case was escalated to the Supreme Court, several amicus briefs have been filed either expressing support for Cook to remain in office while her case proceeds or advocating in favor of granting Trump’s request to stay the lower court’s injunction.
The Supreme Court order asked the court clerk to establish a briefing schedule for the court to respond to those “friend of the court” briefs.
