Supreme Court Blocks President From Firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook
Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312
Today, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 decision, that Lisa Cook is entitled to remain in her position as a Governor of the Federal Reserve Board because the President failed to give her sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard before removing her from her position.
Background: The Federal Reserve Board is the governing body of the central banking system of the United States. The Board has seven members, who each serve staggered 14-year terms and may only be removed “for cause.” 12 U.S.C. § 242. Governor Lisa Cook’s term was set to expire in 2038. In August 2025, President Trump stated that he was removing Cook “for cause,” pointing to alleged false statements on mortgage applications before she took office.
Cook sued to challenge her removal. Among other things, she argued that the President did not have “cause” to remove her and that she was entitled to notice and a hearing before removal. The district court agreed with Cook and granted a preliminary injunction to prevent her removal. The government sought a stay in the D.C. Circuit. The D.C. Circuit denied the government’s stay motion, thus allowing Cook to remain in office while litigation over her removal continues. The government then sought a stay of the district court’s order preventing removal from the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the government is entitled to a stay of the district court’s order that permits Governor Cook to remain in her position while litigation over her removal continues.
Court’s Holding: In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, the Court held that the government is not entitled to a stay of the district court’s order because it has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits. The Court’s ultimate conclusion was that the President’s attempt to remove Governor Cook was invalid because the President did not provide her notice of the reason for removal and an opportunity to be heard, which is required by the Federal Reserve Act. As the Court explained, Governor Cook was “entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due.”
Although the Court’s decision ultimately rested on that procedural holding, the Court also explained the for-cause removal standard for the Federal Reserve Board. The Court recounted the nation’s long history of independent central banking, starting with the Bank of North America (which predated the Constitution). From that history, the Court inferred a well-established tradition that “monetary policy should not be subject to political interference.”
The Court then explained that the statute requires “cause” before the President can remove a Federal Reserve Board Governor, and courts can review whether the President had sufficient cause to support a particular removal. The Court did not ultimately define “cause,” but noted that the threshold for cause should be “substantial” in light of the historical degree of independence accorded the central banking system. (Unlike in the Slaughter case also decided today, in which the Court held unconstitutional the for-cause removal restriction for members of the Federal Trade Commission, the Court did not consider any constitutional challenge to the for-cause removal restriction for Federal Reserve governors, because the government conceded the statute’s constitutionality.)
Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. He emphasized the unique nature of the Federal Reserve compared to other independent agencies, further highlighting its history and importance to the national and global economy, and said that the ultimate decision in Cook’s case will depend on the factual record that develops.
Justice Jackson also filed a concurring opinion. She said that the application could have been resolved on the balance of the equities alone, which in her view tipped strongly in favor of denying a stay.
Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett each filed dissenting opinions; Justice Gorsuch joined Justice Alito’s dissent. Justice Thomas would have found the for-cause removal unconstitutional as violating the separation of powers. Justices Alito and Barrett would have granted the government a stay using the traditional stay factors.
Read the opinion here.