Main: President Donald Trump speaks to the media following the White House Easter Egg Roll in Washington, D.C., on April 21, 2025 (Photo by Andrew Leyden/NurPhoto via AP). Left inset: Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett speaks during an event at the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas, Thursday, Sept. 18, 2025 (AP Photo/Eric Gay). Right inset: Board of Governors member Lisa Cook, right, listens during an open meeting of the Board of Governors at the Federal Reserve, June 25, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File).
As the Supreme Court handed Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook another significant win for now, keeping her firing by President Donald Trump on ice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett embraced a path that would have “immediately” removed Cook from office.
In a 5-4 decision on Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the liberal wing of the court combined to affirm that the Federal Reserve, unlike other agencies, is unique in its independence, history, and role, and thus Trump”s attempt to fire Cook based on a never-adjudicated mortgage fraud allegation remains blocked.
“We see no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions. Although we appreciate that others may see matters differently, we would not so quickly unsettle this ‘special arrangement sanctioned by history,'” Roberts wrote, noting that there are still “factual issues” that need to be resolved before courts can “assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges” — that is, whether that meets the “for cause” standard.
Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte last year alleged in a criminal referral that Cook, prior to her confirmation to the Federal Reserve Board, “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud” by listing two houses as her primary residence. Trump then cited that referral as “cause” for firing Cook, as he pressured the Fed to cut interest rates.
“That will not do,” the majority opinion said, concluding that Cook was “entitled to notice” beyond a Truth Social post and letter, plus “some opportunity to respond before her termination.”
During oral arguments, Kavanaugh led the charge in warning about the “what goes around comes around” consequences of embracing a framework where a president can remove Federal Reserve members on a whim and for political reasons. Trump has since installed Pulte as the acting director of national intelligence.
In his Monday concurrence, Kavanaugh emphasized that the “interim ruling does not decide whether the President may lawfully remove Governor Cook for cause.”
“The ultimate decision about whether the President may remove Governor Cook for cause will largely depend on the facts regarding the Governor’s actions. And those facts have yet to be determined,” he said, while at the same time standing up in the meantime for the “longstanding historical practice and understanding that the Federal Reserve is an independent agency whose Governors enjoy for-cause removal protection consistent with Article II of the Constitution.”
Notably, the majority opinion took time to respond to Barrett’s solo dissent at length, downplaying her “fears” that the district court’s injunction, as it currently exists, bars a mortgage fraud-based firing of Cook “no matter what.”
“Neither party agrees, and neither do we,” a footnote said. “Like the parties, we read the injunction to forbid the implementation of ‘the President’s letter of August 25’ in which he purported to fire Cook—but not to forbid the President from trying again, if he chooses to do so.”
The effect of ruling Barrett’s way, the majority explained, would be “granting the Government’s application in full, and thus removing Cook from office immediately, as opposed to merely clarifying the injunction’s limited scope.”
To hear Barrett tell it, however, there’s a “disconnect” between the removal bar and the majority’s “try again” suggestion. It’s simply true that Trump has “no way to remove Cook for her alleged mortgage fraud” right now, she said.
“Putting aside my difficulties with the opinion’s scope, there is a disconnect between its holding and its disposition line. The Court does not rule out mortgage fraud as sufficient cause for removal under §242; instead, it denies a stay on the ‘narrow groun[d]’ that the President has not yet provided Cook enough process. The President remains free to ‘tr[y] again,’ the Court says, so long as he gives Cook proper notice and an opportunity to respond,” Barrett wrote. “But if the Court wanted to leave the President in that position, it should not have denied the stay.”
“Under our precedent, that significant interference with the President’s removal authority clears the ‘irreparable harm’ threshold,” she added later.
