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.


New York Legalizes Medical Aid in Dying for Terminally Ill Patients
Missouri Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Starbucks’ Diversity and Inclusion Policies
U.S. Condemns South Africa’s Expulsion of Israeli Diplomat Amid Rising Diplomatic Tensions
China Warns US Arms Sales to Taiwan Could Disrupt Trump’s Planned Visit
CK Hutchison Unit Launches Arbitration Against Panama Over Port Concessions Ruling
NATO to Discuss Strengthening Greenland Security Amid Arctic Tensions
US Judge Rejects $2.36B Penalty Bid Against Google in Privacy Data Case
TrumpRx.gov Highlights GLP-1 Drug Discounts but Offers Limited Savings for Most Americans
Trump Rejects Putin’s New START Extension Offer, Raising Fears of a New Nuclear Arms Race
Trump Administration Sued Over Suspension of Critical Hudson River Tunnel Funding
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Halted EV Charger Funding
Panama Supreme Court Voids Hong Kong Firm’s Panama Canal Port Contracts Over Constitutional Violations
Trump Signs Executive Order Threatening 25% Tariffs on Countries Trading With Iran
Trump Allegedly Sought Airport, Penn Station Renaming in Exchange for Hudson River Tunnel Funding
U.S. Announces Additional $6 Million in Humanitarian Aid to Cuba Amid Oil Sanctions and Fuel Shortages 



