U.S. Supreme Court justices appear reluctant to grant President Donald Trump’s request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Still, the court’s eventual ruling may stop short of answering the larger constitutional questions surrounding presidential power over the central bank.
Legal experts following the case say the justices are signaling interest in a limited decision. Rather than ruling on whether Trump had proper cause to fire Cook, or whether a president can remove Fed officials at all, the court could send the case back to a lower court for additional fact-finding. That approach would leave the most consequential issues unresolved, at least for now.
Trump’s attempt to remove Cook, combined with a separate Justice Department criminal probe involving Fed Chair Jerome Powell, marks the most serious test of central bank independence since the Federal Reserve’s creation in 1913. Economists widely view that independence as critical to protecting monetary policy from short-term political pressure.
A cautious court and a thin factual record
During arguments, several justices focused on how quickly the dispute reached the high court. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned why the case moved through the executive branch and lower courts in what he described as a hurried manner, without a fully developed evidentiary record.
Cook sued Trump days after he posted a letter on social media declaring her “hereby removed.” Trump cited allegations that Cook falsified mortgage documents to obtain loans. Cook has denied wrongdoing and argues the accusations serve as a pretext tied to disagreements over interest rate policy.
Lower courts blocked the removal, finding that Trump likely violated Cook’s due process rights and failed to establish sufficient cause under the statute governing the Fed. That law allows removal only “for cause” but does not define the term or outline procedures.
Several justices appeared uneasy deciding such complex issues on an emergency basis. Legal scholars say that hesitation increases the likelihood of a narrow ruling that keeps the existing injunction in place while directing the trial court to further examine the facts.
Public interest and market stability
To succeed, Trump must show he would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction remains. The justices must also weigh the broader public interest. During arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted warnings from economists that abruptly removing a Fed governor could unsettle markets or even trigger a recession.
That concern could provide a straightforward basis for denying Trump’s request without addressing the Fed’s unique status. Some experts say the court could issue a brief order rejecting the bid, with little explanation, as it has done in other emergency cases.
Such a decision would not end the dispute. Instead, it would delay a final reckoning on presidential authority over the Federal Reserve, leaving the door open for the issue to return to the Supreme Court after further proceedings.
Trump, for his part, said after the hearing that he did not sense strong skepticism from the justices, aside from questions about the rushed process. The court is expected to rule by the end of June, though a decision could come sooner.
