Trump v. Cook

In August 2025, President Trump announced that he was firing Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, saying he had cause to remove her. His reasoning was a claim that she made false statements on mortgage paperwork before she joined the Fed. The accusation came days after the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, Bill Pulte, publicly shared a letter to the attorney general accusing Cook of mortgage fraud. Cook has denied the allegations, and she has not been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Under federal law, Fed governors serve 14-year terms and can be removed by the president only “for cause.” Cook’s term was set to run until 2038.

Cook sued in federal court in Washington, D.C., and a district judge blocked the firing with a preliminary injunction while the case went forward. A divided D.C. Circuit upheld that order. The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to put the injunction on hold, which would have let the firing take effect right away. The justices didn’t act on the request immediately, instead deferring it and hearing oral argument in January 2026. They issued their decision on June 29, 2026, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts.

Cook argued that the “for cause” requirement means something real. She said she had been given no notice of the accusations and no chance to respond, and that the Fed has historically been insulated from direct presidential control because of its role in setting interest rates.

The government argued that the statute gives the president the power to decide whether cause exists, and that a court shouldn’t keep Cook in her job while the lawsuit is pending. It was part of the administration’s broader push to expand presidential control over independent agencies.

A 5–4 Court sided with Cook. It denied the government’s request, which leaves the injunction in place and keeps her in office while the litigation continues. Roberts wrote that the government was unlikely to win on the merits. He said that whatever “for cause” requires, it requires at least some process: an explanation of the evidence, a chance to respond, and a deadline for doing so. Cook got none of that, the Court said, so her removal was “erroneous and void.” The Court also tied its reasoning to the Fed’s long-standing independence, which it described as rooted in the nation’s history and tradition.

Roberts was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, and both Kavanaugh and Jackson wrote concurring opinions. Four justices dissented. Thomas wrote his own dissent, Alito wrote one joined by Gorsuch, and Barrett wrote separately as well.

The ruling is a procedural one. The Court did not decide whether Trump can ultimately remove Cook, only that she was entitled to a fair opportunity to defend herself first, and the government can try again with a different process. Trump said after the ruling that he would take “appropriate action immediately.” It is also the first time the Court has directly addressed a president’s attempt to remove a sitting Fed governor. The same day, the Court issued a separate ruling in Trump v. Slaughter that gave the president broader power to remove officials at the Federal Trade Commission, a contrast that shows the justices treat the Federal Reserve as a special case.