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.


Russian Air Attacks Plunge Kyiv Into Darkness, Raise Nuclear Safety Fears
Publishers Seek to Join Lawsuit Against Google Over Alleged AI Copyright Infringement
Google Seeks Delay on Data-Sharing Order as It Appeals Landmark Antitrust Ruling
New York Judge Orders Redrawing of GOP-Held Congressional District
Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Cutting $80 Million in Minnesota SNAP Funding
Trump Signals Possible Harvard Deal Amid Ongoing Tensions
Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol Faces Historic Court Ruling Over Failed Martial Law Attempt
Ecuador Imposes 30% Tariff on Colombian Imports Amid Border Security Tensions
Trump Revives Greenland Ownership Push Ahead of World Economic Forum in Davos
European Leaders Unite in Davos as Trump’s Greenland Threat Sparks Trade Tensions
Trump Declines G7 Paris Meeting Amid Rising Tensions With European Allies Over Greenland Remarks
Trump’s “Board of Peace” Gains Support from Middle East and Asian Nations
Supreme Court to Hear Cisco Appeal on Alien Tort Statute and Human Rights Liability
Russia Says Ukraine Peace Talks With U.S. Show Progress
Trump Signals Potential Role for Maria Corina Machado in Venezuela as U.S. Policy Tone Shifts
Elon Musk Seeks $134 Billion in Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Microsoft Over Alleged Wrongful Gains 



