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.


U.S. Urges China to Help Curb Iran’s Actions in Gulf, Rubio Says
Florida Investigates OpenAI and ChatGPT Over Alleged Role in FSU Shooting
Federal Appeals Court Allows Texas SB4 Immigration Law Enforcement to Proceed
Trump DOJ Accuses Yale Medical School of Racial Bias in Admissions
Russia Launches Massive Drone and Missile Attack on Kyiv
Bolsonaro Discharged After Shoulder Surgery Amid Ongoing Legal Troubles
Arcadia Mayor Eileen Wang Pleads Guilty in China Foreign Agent Case
Matthew Wale Elected Solomon Islands Prime Minister After No-Confidence Vote
Starmer Faces Leadership Crisis as Wes Streeting Reportedly Considers Challenge
Aung San Suu Kyi Moved to House Arrest Amid Myanmar Political Crisis
Vance Says Progress Made in Iran Nuclear Talks as Trump Rejects Tehran Proposal
Trump Administration Files Fraud Charges Against Southern Poverty Law Center Over Informant Payments
Trump Pushes China Market Access During High-Stakes Xi Summit
Elon Musk’s China Influence Faces New Challenges Amid Rising EV Competition
TikTok Nears $400 Million Settlement With Trump Administration Over Child Privacy Lawsuit
US Trade Court Blocks Trump’s 10% Global Tariffs
Comey Faces Charges Over Instagram Post as Free Speech Debate Intensifies 



