Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline Legal Blog-Supreme Court lets Lisa Cook stay on Federal Reserve board for now, sets January hearing
The president is attempting to assert more control over the historically independent Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Supreme Court lets Lisa Cook stay on Federal Reserve board for now, sets January hearing www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
— Minka (@minkab.bsky.social) 2025-10-01T15:16:42.304Z
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-lisa-cook-federal-reserve-board-trump-rcna232182
The Supreme Court has set a January hearing to consider whether President Donald Trump can fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In doing so, the court put off deciding immediately whether to let Trump keep her off the board while her lawsuit proceeds against his bid to fire her. That means Cook stays on the board for now, pending further action from the high court......
The court’s treatment of this case so far is different from Trump’s moves to fire members of other agencies, which the court’s Republican-appointed majority has approved more quickly. The majority has signaled that it considers the Federal Reserve to be different from other agencies and therefore is entitled to special considerations. How that plays out in Cook’s case should become clearer at the January hearing, with a decision likely to come by early July, by which point all of the term’s cases are typically decided. The justices return to the bench Monday for their next term, which already had several momentous cases scheduled before the court added the hearing in Cook’s significant case.,,,,,
The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority previously signaled its intention to protect Fed independence, even as the justices have let Trump fire members of other agencies without cause in his second term — hence the president’s pointing to an alleged cause for Cook’s firing. But seeking to limit judicial review of Trump’s reasoning and thus further expand his presidential powers, the U.S. solicitor general wrote to the high court that “once the President identifies a cause, judicial review must cease.”
Opposing the administration’s emergency appeal, Cook’s lawyers wrote that the “bottom line is this: Contrary to the President’s boundless assertion of authority, there must be some meaningful check on the President’s ability to remove Governor Cook. Otherwise, any president could remove any governor based on any charge of wrongdoing, however flawed.” They added that siding with Trump “would sound the death knell for the central-bank independence that has helped make the United States’ economy the strongest in the world.”
Among the outside parties supporting Cook were former top U.S. economic leaders, who urged the justices to reject Trump’s bid for high court intervention. Touting Fed independence based on their experience, they wrote that allowing Cook’s removal while her challenge is pending “would threaten that independence and erode public confidence in the Fed.”
The court’s treatment of this case so far is different from Trump’s moves to fire members of other agencies, which the court’s Republican-appointed majority has approved more quickly. The majority has signaled that it considers the Federal Reserve to be different from other agencies and therefore is entitled to special considerations. How that plays out in Cook’s case should become clearer at the January hearing, with a decision likely to come by early July, by which point all of the term’s cases are typically decided. The justices return to the bench Monday for their next term, which already had several momentous cases scheduled before the court added the hearing in Cook’s significant case.,,,,,
The Supreme Court’s Republican-appointed majority previously signaled its intention to protect Fed independence, even as the justices have let Trump fire members of other agencies without cause in his second term — hence the president’s pointing to an alleged cause for Cook’s firing. But seeking to limit judicial review of Trump’s reasoning and thus further expand his presidential powers, the U.S. solicitor general wrote to the high court that “once the President identifies a cause, judicial review must cease.”
Opposing the administration’s emergency appeal, Cook’s lawyers wrote that the “bottom line is this: Contrary to the President’s boundless assertion of authority, there must be some meaningful check on the President’s ability to remove Governor Cook. Otherwise, any president could remove any governor based on any charge of wrongdoing, however flawed.” They added that siding with Trump “would sound the death knell for the central-bank independence that has helped make the United States’ economy the strongest in the world.”
Among the outside parties supporting Cook were former top U.S. economic leaders, who urged the justices to reject Trump’s bid for high court intervention. Touting Fed independence based on their experience, they wrote that allowing Cook’s removal while her challenge is pending “would threaten that independence and erode public confidence in the Fed.”
The fact that the claims of mortgage fraud have been debunked will come up. trump will not be happy with this delay in that the Fed may consider several interest rate cuts between now and the ruling in this case.