Supreme Court Seems Likely to Block Trump Bid to Fire Fed Governor Cook After Hearing on Presidential Removal Power
At oral arguments Wednesday, multiple Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s claim that a president’s “for‑cause” decision to fire a Federal Reserve governor is wholly unreviewable, with several justices — including conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh — warning such a rule would undercut 112 years of Fed independence and the Court signaling it is likely to keep Lisa Cook in her seat for now. The administration says it had “cause” based on alleged pre‑appointment mortgage misrepresentations Cook denies and for which she has not been charged; Fed Chair Jerome Powell (who will attend the arguments) and four former Fed chairs, Treasury secretaries and other economists filed warnings about the economic and credibility risks, while recent DOJ subpoenas relating to Powell have complicated the optics of the dispute.
📌 Key Facts
- The Supreme Court held emergency oral arguments on Jan. 21 over President Trump’s effort to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook; both Fed Chair Jerome Powell and Cook attended the hearing.
- Lower courts reinstated Cook, found she likely was denied due process, and have kept her on the Federal Reserve Board while litigation proceeds; she has participated in recent FOMC votes and remains in office during the Supreme Court’s consideration.
- The central legal question is the Federal Reserve Act’s undefined 'for cause' removal protection: the administration argues a president may determine 'cause' (and that such decisions are largely unreviewable), while Cook argues pre‑appointment alleged misconduct does not meet the statutory standard and courts must be able to review removal decisions.
- The administration’s stated basis for removal is alleged pre‑appointment mortgage misrepresentations on two loans (properties in Michigan and Atlanta), an allegation Cook denies and for which she has not been charged; her lawyers say the administration cherry‑picked examples and gave her insufficient notice or a hearing.
- Recent DOJ grand jury subpoenas related to Jerome Powell’s June 2025 testimony about Federal Reserve headquarters renovations — which Powell says are being used as pressure over interest‑rate policy — have introduced a political context that legal experts say could make the administration’s removal case harder to win.
- Several justices signaled skepticism of the administration’s no‑review theory: Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned it could 'weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed on economists’ warnings that firing a governor could risk recession, and other justices raised procedural and factual questions about notice and predication of 'cause.'
- A high‑profile amicus coalition — including Powell, every living former Fed chair (Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen), multiple former Treasury secretaries and other former economic officials — warned that allowing such removals would erode Fed independence, harm markets and risk higher inflation; the Solicitor General countered that those briefs reflect policy concerns rather than controlling legal principles.
- Multiple major outlets reported that, based on the oral argument and the justices’ questioning, the Supreme Court appears likely to block the administration’s immediate bid to remove Cook and to keep her on the Board while the underlying legal disputes play out; a final decision is pending.
📰 Source Timeline (25)
Follow how coverage of this story developed over time
January 23, 2026
9:37 PM
Lawyers, guns and money: SCOTUS considers firearms and the Federal Reserve
New information:
- The piece highlights Trump appointee Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s specific warning that the administration’s theory 'would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.'
- It notes that the hearing 'reinforced' pre‑argument signals that a majority will keep Lisa Cook on the Board through her term ending in 2038, even as the Court has been less protective of other agencies’ independence.
- The article anchors this in the Court’s broader removal‑power jurisprudence by emphasizing the Fed as an exception to its recent trend of expanding presidential control over the administrative state.
January 22, 2026
12:06 PM
World leaders to hold emergency summit on Greenland. And, SCOTUS weighs Fed case
New information:
- NPR says after oral argument, the Supreme Court appears likely to block Trump’s attempt to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook from the Board of Governors.
- Reporter Scott Horsley notes that while the Court has previously given Trump broad firing power over other independent agencies, several justices explicitly treated the Fed as a 'special case' designed by Congress to be insulated from day‑to‑day political pressure on interest rates.
- Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, emphasized in open court that Congress structured the Federal Reserve to be shielded from presidents seeking short-term economic boosts before elections.
- NPR clarifies that Trump’s formal justification for firing Cook rests on allegedly false mortgage statements, not on her interest-rate views, and notes that justices seemed skeptical of removing her on that basis without giving her a fair chance to respond.
10:00 AM
A rare filing in the Lisa Cook–Trump case could sway Supreme Court justices
New information:
- Reveals that every living former Fed chair — Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen — plus six former Treasury secretaries and seven former White House economic advisers have jointly filed a 32‑page amicus brief in the Cook case.
- The brief warns that letting President Trump remove a sitting Fed governor would erode public confidence in Fed independence, threaten long‑term economic stability, and likely lead to higher inflation and instability.
- The economic heavyweights argue that expanding presidential removal power over Fed governors is 'neither necessary nor appropriate' and say markets and other actors are already watching the dispute to judge the Fed’s future credibility.
- Trump Solicitor General John Sauer responds in a written filing that the amicus focuses on policy preferences, not law, and that those preferences lack any logical limiting principle.
9:46 AM
Morning news brief
New information:
- NPR’s brief highlights the Supreme Court’s consideration of Trump’s power to fire Federal Reserve governors as one of the day’s top national stories.
- It situates the Fed‑governor firing case alongside Trump’s Greenland push in a single news agenda, reinforcing that the question of presidential control over the Fed is now front‑and‑center in both domestic and international politics.
- The framing makes clear that the case is being watched as a test of how far Trump can go in personally reshaping monetary policy, something foreign leaders are weighing at the same time they confront his Greenland demands.
1:02 AM
Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's efforts to fire Lisa Cook from Fed Board
New information:
- CBS segment reiterates that several justices appeared skeptical of President Trump’s asserted authority to remove Lisa Cook based on alleged pre‑appointment mortgage misrepresentations.
- It reinforces that Cook, described as an embattled Federal Reserve governor, received a perceived boost from the justices’ questioning during oral argument.
- The piece underscores that Cook is actively fighting to remain on the Fed Board and that this particular hearing is being closely watched as a test of Fed independence.
January 21, 2026
11:35 PM
Supreme Court hears case on Trump's attempt to control Federal Reserve
New information:
- PBS segment confirms and elaborates that the central legal battle is over Trump’s effort to fire a sitting Federal Reserve governor and thereby increase White House control over the Fed.
- Interview with Supreme Court analyst Amy Howe adds more texture on the justices’ lines of questioning and how they are thinking about the limits of 'for‑cause' removal and judicial review of presidential decisions.
- Brookings economist David Wessel provides additional context on why the case is unprecedented in the Fed’s 112‑year history and what different potential rulings could mean for markets and Fed independence.
11:09 PM
Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump’s firing of Fed board member
New information:
- CSMonitor provides more detailed quotations from oral argument, including Justice Kavanaugh’s warning that broader removal power would lead to 'what-goes-around-comes-around' mass firings after each election.
- Article underscores that all parties in the courtroom accepted an earlier Supreme Court statement describing the Fed as a 'uniquely structured, quasi-private entity' entitled to stronger removal protections.
- It highlights bipartisan concern on the Court (Alito and Sotomayor) about how rushed the case has been in lower courts and whether they should wait for fuller factual development on the mortgage-fraud allegation and due-process issues.
- Raises specific unanswered questions: whether a Trump social-media post legally counts as notice of firing, whether Cook had a proper opportunity to respond, and whether pre-appointment alleged conduct can constitute 'cause' for removal.
10:38 PM
Why the Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump's firing of Lisa Cook
New information:
- CBS segment reiterates that the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on whether President Trump exceeded his authority in firing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
- It reinforces that multiple justices signaled skepticism of the administration’s theory during oral argument, according to CBS chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford.
- The piece frames the key takeaway as concern inside the Court that allowing near‑unreviewable presidential removal could erode Fed independence and unsettle markets.
9:38 PM
Fed's Cook doubles down on her role after SCOTUS wraps
New information:
- Lisa Cook issued a formal statement immediately after oral arguments explicitly defending Federal Reserve independence and pledging to 'uphold the principle of political independence' for as long as she serves.
- Cook framed Trump’s effort to remove her as a 'political threat' to the Fed and cited research and experience showing independence is 'essential' to meeting Congress’s mandate of price stability and maximum employment.
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett, during arguments, highlighted amicus briefs from economists warning that firing Cook could 'trigger a recession' and raised concerns about public confidence if a president can remove a Fed governor without clear justification.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that it is 'more important that the markets and the public have faith in the independence of the Fed' than that a president have 'full faith in every single governor.'
- The article reiterates that this is the first attempt by any president in the 112‑year history of the Fed to fire a sitting governor and notes the justices showed little appetite for granting Trump immediate removal.
8:15 PM
Supreme Court appears ready to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve board despite Trump efforts to fire her
New information:
- Details that the case has reached the Supreme Court on an emergency basis, with the administration seeking to remove Cook immediately while litigation continues.
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh, normally a strong defender of executive power, questioned the administration’s claim that there should be no judicial review of a president’s 'for cause' removal decision and warned that accepting it could 'weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.'
- Justice Amy Coney Barrett highlighted amicus briefs from economists asserting that firing Cook could itself help trigger a recession and pressed the solicitor general on how to weigh that public‑interest risk.
- Cook’s lawyer argued that Congress designed the Fed as a stand‑alone, politically insulated entity and that Trump’s attempted removal over alleged private mortgage fraud does not satisfy the statutory 'for cause' standard.
6:51 PM
Kavanaugh warns Trump case could 'shatter' Federal Reserve independence in Supreme Court hearing
New information:
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, explicitly told Solicitor General John Sauer that the administration’s no‑review, president‑defined 'for cause' standard would 'weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.'
- Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on the real‑world downstream effects, warning that if Trump’s position prevails, future presidents could remove all prior appointees 'for cause' on Inauguration Day, turning nominal 'for cause' protection into de facto at‑will removal.
- Solicitor General Sauer argued the statutory 'for cause' language is a 'high bar' largely aimed at preventing removals over policy disagreement, disputing Kavanaugh’s characterization.
- The article emphasizes that the justices, including conservatives, seemed more protective of the Fed’s independence here than in a related case about Trump’s power to fire leaders of agencies like the FTC.
- Fox reiterates that Trump alleges Lisa Cook committed private mortgage fraud, which she denies; she has received no due process and has not been charged with any crime.
6:47 PM
Supreme Court seems inclined to keep Lisa Cook on Fed board: Details from the courtroom
New information:
- CBS on‑air reporting characterizes the overall Court as 'likely' to allow Lisa Cook to remain on the Fed Board and to reject, at least for now, President Trump's effort to fire her.
- The segment underscores that Wednesday’s oral arguments did not reveal a clear path for the administration’s position, adding media on‑scene color to earlier written accounts of Kavanaugh’s comments.
- It reinforces timing by noting that arguments were heard Wednesday and frames this as the current state of play before the Court issues a decision.
5:40 PM
Supreme Court hearing on Lisa Cook ousting raises concern over Fed independence
New information:
- CBS segment confirms that the Supreme Court held arguments Wednesday in the Trump administration’s case seeking to oust Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
- The piece centers public and expert concern that the bid to remove Cook could erode Federal Reserve independence if the Court backs broad presidential removal power.
- It reinforces that the case is being framed in mainstream coverage as a serious test of institutional safeguards around monetary policy.
5:12 PM
Supreme Court appears wary of allowing Trump to fire Fed's Cook in closely watched case
New information:
- During Jan. 21 oral arguments, multiple justices appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s claim that a president’s 'for-cause' decision to fire a Fed governor is completely unreviewable by courts.
- Cook’s lawyers warned that allowing unreviewable presidential removals would be 'disastrous' for Fed independence; the administration accused her of falsifying documents for mortgages on two properties she listed as primary residences, which she denies.
- Cook’s legal team pointed to recent reporting that four Trump Cabinet members, his deputy attorney general, and relatives of FHFA head Bill Pulte have taken out multiple 'primary residence' mortgages without facing similar accusations.
- The article underscores that if Trump prevails, he could move to replace not just Cook but multiple governors, though he still could not gain an immediate Board majority unless he can remove seated governors as well.
- NPR reiterates prior Supreme Court language describing the Fed as a 'uniquely structured, quasi-private entity' in the tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States, suggesting some justices may see it differently from standard executive agencies.
2:24 PM
Supreme Court hearing arguments on Trump's attempt to fire Lisa Cook from Fed board
New information:
- CBS segment confirms the Supreme Court is actively hearing arguments on President Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
- It identifies CBS correspondent Katrina Kaufman as covering the oral arguments on scene.
2:14 PM
Supreme Court hears arguments over whether Trump can fire Fed's Lisa Cook
New information:
- Confirms the precise timing of oral arguments: 10 a.m. Wednesday, with Cook remaining in office during the hearing.
- Details Trump’s August removal letter citing "deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter" tied to alleged mortgage misrepresentations in Michigan and Atlanta.
- Clarifies that DOJ is not attacking the constitutionality of the Fed’s for‑cause protection, but is arguing Trump lawfully exercised it and that courts should not second‑guess his cause determination.
- Notes that District Judge Jia Cobb reinstated Cook and found Trump had not validly removed her for cause and likely deprived her of due‑process notice and a hearing.
- Reports that Cook has already participated in the last two FOMC meetings and will likely be at the upcoming one while the case is pending, and that Jerome Powell plans to attend the arguments.
- Highlights prior Supreme Court language describing the Fed as a "uniquely structured, quasi‑private entity" and Justice Kavanaugh’s suggestion that the Court could carve out an exception for the Fed from broader presidential removal power.
12:11 PM
What to expect from Trump's Davos speech. And, the DOJ subpoenas Minnesota officials
New information:
- NPR’s Nina Totenberg reports the administration’s legal position that once a president determines he has 'cause' to fire a Fed governor, courts cannot review that decision.
- The article details the specific allegation the administration is using as 'cause': that Lisa Cook allegedly committed mortgage fraud by listing two different properties as her primary residence at different times when obtaining loans, an accusation she denies.
- Totenberg underscores that if the Court accepts the administration’s argument, it would effectively give Trump unrestricted power to purge the Fed’s governing board and install his own picks, eroding a 112‑year‑old norm.
11:00 AM
Supreme Court weighs Trump bid to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook
New information:
- This piece details the administration’s formal legal argument to the Court: that Trump’s 'for cause' removal power is discretionary and can be exercised based on Cook’s alleged misrepresentations about a personal mortgage, even absent criminal charges.
- It quotes Solicitor General D. John Sauer telling the Court that 'the president may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a governor who appears to have lied' about her own loan terms and 'refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations.'
- Cook’s brief is quoted more fully as warning that granting Trump’s request would 'transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the president’s will' and 'dramatically alter the status quo' of central-bank independence.
- The article clarifies that Trump first announced his intent to fire Cook in an August social-media post after allegations by Trump official Bill Pulte, and that no law‑enforcement agency has brought charges related to those claims.
- It explains that the justices have two paths: decide narrowly on whether to leave the lower‑court injunction protecting Cook in place, or reach broader constitutional questions about the legality of Trump’s effort under the Federal Reserve Act and similar independence statutes.
10:00 AM
It's showdown time for the Fed's independence at the Supreme Court
New information:
- NPR provides detailed framing that financial markets are in 'near panic' over the case’s implications for Fed independence.
- The piece lays out the historical background that Congress created the Fed in 1913 with fixed terms and removal only for 'malfeasance in office' to shield monetary policy from political manipulation.
- It details the administration’s stated 'cause' for firing Cook — alleged falsification of mortgage documents — and her legal team’s rebuttal that the applications were cherry‑picked and comparable behavior exists among multiple Trump cabinet officials and even the deputy attorney general’s relatives.
- Harvard law professor and former Fed governor Daniel Tarullo is quoted explaining why presidents always want lower rates, especially in election years, and how that can destabilize the economy by pushing up long‑term interest rates and hurting mortgages and business investment.
1:00 AM
LISTEN LIVE: Supreme Court case on Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook
New information:
- Confirms that Supreme Court arguments are set to begin Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST and provides a live‑audio link context.
- Reiterates that Cook is the first Black woman on the Fed board and that no president has ever fired a sitting Fed governor in the institution’s 112‑year history.
- Details Trump’s stated motive of wanting faster, sharper interest‑rate cuts so the government and consumers can borrow more cheaply amid voter anger over prices.
- Notes that Powell and three former Fed chairs (Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen) plus five ex‑Treasury secretaries have filed in support of Cook, warning that removing her now would erode Fed independence and monetary‑policy credibility.
- Reinforces that lower courts have kept Cook in her seat while litigation proceeds, and that the administration is seeking emergency permission from the Supreme Court to remove her immediately.
January 20, 2026
10:01 PM
Supreme Court to weigh Trump's bid to oust Lisa Cook from Fed board
New information:
- Clarifies that this is the first time in the Fed’s 112‑year history a president has tried to fire a sitting governor, underscoring the unprecedented nature of the case.
- Details the specific statutory hook: the Federal Reserve Act’s 'for cause' removal language, which is undefined and now squarely at issue.
- Spells out Trump’s stated basis for removal — allegations relayed by Federal Housing Director Bill Pulte about alleged misrepresentations on mortgage documents in Michigan and Atlanta — and Cook’s categorical denial.
- Describes how Cook sued, won reinstatement and a due‑process finding from U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, and then prevailed at the D.C. Circuit panel stage before the administration sought Supreme Court intervention.
- Reiterates that Cook has continued to sit on the FOMC and vote at the last two interest‑rate meetings while the Supreme Court considers Trump’s emergency request.
January 19, 2026
7:02 PM
Powell to attend Supreme Court arguments over Trump's move to fire Lisa Cook
New information:
- Fed Chair Jerome Powell will personally attend the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the Lisa Cook removal case, according to a source and prior AP reporting.
- The article reiterates that lower courts and the Supreme Court have allowed Cook to remain on the Fed Board while her legal challenge proceeds, clarifying her current status.
- It tightens the link between Powell’s attendance and the recent DOJ grand jury subpoenas over his June 2025 Senate testimony on Fed building renovations, which he publicly calls a pretext for pressuring the Fed on interest rates.
6:48 PM
Powell Will Attend Supreme Court Hearing on Lisa Cook’s Lawsuit Against Trump
New information:
- Confirms Jerome Powell will personally attend Supreme Court oral arguments on President Trump’s attempt to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
- Confirms Lisa Cook will also attend the arguments in person.
- Reiterates that the administration is alleging pre‑appointment mortgage fraud as 'cause' for removal, which Cook denies, and that she has not been charged.
- Links Powell’s decision to attend directly to his recent public video accusing the administration of using a DOJ criminal probe into Fed headquarters renovations as pressure over interest‑rate policy.
5:15 PM
Federal Reserve Inquiry Clouds Trump’s Supreme Court Bid to Oust Lisa Cook
New information:
- Confirms that DOJ issued subpoenas this month as part of a criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell, focused on his prior testimony about Fed headquarters renovations.
- Reports that legal experts believe the Powell subpoenas make the administration’s case to fire Lisa Cook harder to win by reinforcing the appearance of pressure on the Fed to cut rates.
- Details that Trump’s solicitor general will argue Trump had 'cause' to remove Lisa Cook based on alleged mortgage‑fraud in loan documents she signed before joining the Fed, while emphasizing she has not been charged and denies the allegations.