Left: Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook listens during an open meeting of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, June 25, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File). Right: Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell takes off his hard hat as President Donald Trump looks at ongoing construction at the Federal Reserve, Thursday, July 24, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson).
Fresh off a loss in district court, the DOJ in an emergency filing urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Thursday to put on hold a judge”s order that blocked President Donald Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook, ahead of an anticipated Fed meeting.
The 24-page filing submitted to the appellate court, seeking an emergency stay and administrative stay pending appeal, notably cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order that allowed, for now, Trump to fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, the potential implications of which Law&Crime previously covered as it related to Cook’s case.
The opening lines of the motion stated that U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a 2021 appointee of President Joe Biden, made “a series of legal errors” when she ruled Tuesday that mortgage fraud allegations stemming from before her time in office did not meet the “for cause” standard for removal.
Cook, also a Biden appointee who began her 14-year term in 2023, and her high-profile attorney Abbe Lowell successfully argued preliminarily that, regardless of the disputed mortgage fraud allegations, federal law shows that the “best reading of the ‘for cause’ provision is that the bases for removal of a member of the Board of Governors are limited to grounds concerning a Governor’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties,” not solely alleged and unadjudicated conduct prior to her confirmation that Trump cited as “cause.”
Cobb’s reasoning, the DOJ argued, was “extraordinary” and an affront to Trump’s “exercise of his Article II authority.” The government contends the preliminary injunction wrongly found Cook was likely to succeed in arguing that Trump’s firing determinations are reviewable by the courts, that she was not afforded due process, and that she was not fired “for cause.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox
Putting forth an expansive view of the president’s power to fire a principal officer at an institution historically insulated from political interference, the DOJ argued that Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte’s criminal referral against Cook and Trump’s subsequent move to fire her were lawful, even though Cook has not been charged or convicted of a crime and denies the allegations.
“Here, the evidence—which Cook has yet to offer contrary explanation for—was that she applied for two loans for her personal benefit, and was able to obtain favorable interest rates by misrepresenting where she lived,” the filing said. “Regardless of whether that misconduct occurred before or during office, it indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy for the whole Nation.”
“Indeed, the district court had no problem confirming that the President would have cause to remove Cook if she was convicted of mortgage fraud based on her conduct before taking office,” the DOJ added. “Criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for removal under 12 U.S.C. § 242, and the President acted lawfully in removing Cook from office.”
Claiming Cook’s denials have “offered no meaningful explanation for her apparent contradictory statements about whether she primarily lived in her Michigan house or her Georgia house, both of which she stated would be her primary residence for essentially the same time,” the DOJ reiterated — by quoting none other than Alexander Hamilton — that the allegation “constitutes clear cause” for Trump to “consider and ultimately order” Cook’s removal for undermining “confidence” that she can be trusted:
As Alexander Hamilton made clear when discussing the Federal Reserve’s historical predecessor—the Bank of the United States—its principals must be entrusted with the “keen, steady, and, as it were, magnetic sense” of the “prosperity of the institution” for “careful and prudent administration,” because that is the “only basis on which an enlightened, unqualified and permanent confidence can be expected to be erected and maintained.” When Governors by misconduct or gross neglect erode the foundations of such confidence, the President acts properly and lawfully by removing them.
Crucially, the government is asking the D.C. Circuit to follow SCOTUS’ recent interim upending of Rebecca Slaughter’s reinstatement as FTC commissioner and to issue a stay before, what the DOJ indicates, is a key meeting Tuesday including the Federal Reserve Board, amid Trump’s calls for Fed chair Jerome Powell to cut interest rates:
We also respectfully request that the Court act on the request for an administrative stay or a stay pending appeal by the close of business on Monday, September 15, 2025, as the Federal Open Market Committee—which includes the Board of Governors—is scheduled to meet and may direct open market activities for Federal Reserve Banks on September 16.
Cook attorneys Lowell and Norm Eisen previously hailed Cobb’s order by saying the decision, keeping Cook in place as the lawsuit proceeds, “recognizes and reaffirms the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference.”
“Allowing the president to unlawfully remove Governor Cook on unsubstantiated and vague allegations would endanger the stability of our financial system and undermine the rule of law,” the attorneys said. “Governor Cook will continue to carry out her sworn duties as a Senate-confirmed Board Governor member.”
