The Trump administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to halt a federal judge’s ruling in Washington, D.C., that keeps Lisa Cook on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. President Donald Trump attempted to fire Cook over pre-board mortgage fraud allegations she denies. The legal battle over presidential removal power escalates.
SCOTUSblog reported that U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb’s ruling improperly meddles with presidential authority to remove Federal Reserve members for cause. This request came a day after the Fed’s September meeting, where Cook voted for a quarter-point rate cut, the first since December 2024.
Trump has criticized Fed Chair Jerome Powell for insufficient rate reductions. While Cook joined 10 governors in the cut, Trump appointee Stephen Miran pushed for more. The administration’s move to oust Cook, announced via Truth Social on Aug. 25, 2025, cited her alleged fraud as cause.
The Federal Reserve, established in 1913 by Congress, operates as the U.S. central bank, managing monetary policy for economic stability. Independent from congressional funding, its seven-member Board of Governors serves 14-year terms, appointed by the president and Senate-confirmed, removable only “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act.
Then-President Joe Biden nominated Cook in 2023 for a 14-year term. The Trump administration alleges she committed mortgage fraud in 2021, signing dual primary residence agreements in Michigan and Georgia, as detailed by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte in a Justice Department referral.
Cook challenged her firing in federal court three days after Trump’s Aug. 25 announcement. On Sept. 9, 2025, Judge Cobb ordered the Fed to retain Cook during litigation, ruling she’s likely to succeed on claims that her removal violated the “for cause” requirement of the Federal Reserve Act.
Cobb argued “for cause” limits removal to in-office behavior, not pre-board conduct, and found Cook’s firing likely breached her Fifth Amendment due process rights for lack of notice and hearing. She rejected the administration’s stance that courts can’t review presidential cause determinations, insisting on judicial oversight.
The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, which, by a 2-1 vote, upheld Cobb’s order. Judge Bradley Garcia agreed Cook likely lacked due process, saying, “Held—in terms that squarely apply here—that the government may not ‘prioritize any policy goal over the Due Process Clause.’”
Conservatives supporting President Trump might see Garcia’s ruling as judicial overreach, undermining executive power. If “for cause” is so narrow, doesn’t it handcuff a president’s ability to ensure trustworthy regulators? This clash risks tying Trump’s hands on critical economic oversight.
D.C. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas dissented, backing broad presidential removal power under “for cause,” rejecting Cook’s property interest in her role. Sauer’s 38-page filing mirrored this, decrying lower courts equating principal officers to civil servants for due process claims as disruptive to presidential decisions.
Sauer disputed Cobb’s pre-office conduct exclusion for “cause,” arguing courts can’t review a president’s stated reason beyond baseless removals. He clarified the administration isn’t challenging the “for cause” rule’s constitutionality, asserting Trump’s action fits within it, and claimed Cobb overstepped in ordering reinstatement.
Urging a Supreme Court administrative stay, Sauer seeks a pause on Cobb’s order. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a similar stay on Sept. 8, 2025, for FTC member Rebecca Slaughter, fired by Trump in March, though the full court hasn’t ruled on her case yet.
The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky supports executive prerogative. “Presidential removal power must remain robust to ensure accountability,” he noted (https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/presidential-removal-power-essential). This aligns with conservative backing for Trump’s authority over unelected officials like Cook.
For conservatives under President Trump, Cook’s retention amid fraud allegations—denied but documented—raises trust issues in financial oversight. While empathy for due process exists, many might argue pre-office misconduct still reflects on current fitness. Judicial blocks only frustrate necessary housecleaning in critical roles.
Ultimately, this Thursday Supreme Court plea over Cook, fired on Aug. 25, 2025, tests presidential power under Trump’s leadership. Conservatives see it as defending executive control against overreaching courts. As litigation persists, the balance of independence and accountability at the Fed hangs in contention.
