Federal Reserve Act
Trump v. Cook
Date: June 29, 2026
Issue: Whether Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook is entitled to remain in office on an interim basis while the litigation regarding her removal proceeds.
Case Summary: In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the U.S. government’s application to stay a D.C. district court preliminary injunction blocking President Trump from firing Governor Cook.
Under the Federal Reserve Act, the president may remove a Federal Reserve governor before the end of the governor’s term only for cause.
In September 2025, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook sued President Trump and the U.S. government (collectively, the government) after the president attempted to remove her from office. Cook became the first Federal Reserve governor removed in the Fed’s 111-year history. She alleged the president lacked cause for her removal and failed to follow the Federal Reserve Act’s required pretermination procedures. President Trump alleged that he had cause to fire Cook, accusing her of mortgage fraud.
Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction blocking Cook’s removal. The court found that Cook was likely to succeed on the merits because the president failed to identify a legally sufficient reason for her removal. The court also held that the U.S. Constitution entitled Cook to notice and a hearing before the president could terminate her. The government appealed and sought a stay of the injunction, but a divided panel denied. As a result, the government filed an application for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the government was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its application. Before addressing those arguments, the Court emphasized that it was deciding only the government’s request for a stay, not the merits of the case.
The Court ruled 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. In reaching its decision, the Court emphasized these protections reflect the Fed’s longstanding independence from political influence and rejected the government’s argument that Cook had received adequate process. Although Governor Cook was not necessarily entitled to “an audience with the president or a full-blown judicial trial,” she was entitled, at a minimum, to “some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response, and a deadline by which a response would be due,” according to the Court. Because the president did not provide Cook with those basic procedural safeguards, the Court concluded the government was unlikely to prevail on appeal without reaching Cook’s constitutional due process claim.
In addition, the Court rejected the government’s claim that the president’s determination of “cause” is beyond judicial review, holding that courts must decide whether the president’s stated reason complies with the Federal Reserve Act. The Court explained the Federal Reserve Act 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 define “cause,” but noted the threshold for cause should be “substantial” in light of the historical degree of independence accorded the central banking system.
Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, explaining that the majority’s decision did not decide whether the president ultimately had cause to remove Cook, but rather laid out the legal and procedural rules governing any future removal. He also emphasized that the Fed serves a unique constitutional and historical role as an independent central bank. He warned that weakening its independence could create significant economic and financial instability.
Justice Jackson also filed a concurring opinion, explaining that the stay should be denied because the government failed to show it would suffer irreparable harm. She noted 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. According to Justice Thomas, the president lawfully removed Cook because public office is not a property right, the alleged mortgage fraud constituted sufficient cause for removal, and the Federal Reserve Act does not require notice or a hearing. He also maintained that Article II gives the president authority to remove executive officers at will, making the Act’s for-cause protections unconstitutional.
Justices Alito and Barrett would have granted the government a stay using the traditional stay factors.
Bottom Line: The Supreme Court emphasized the Federal Reserve’s independence but did not resolve the ultimate question of whether the president may remove Governor Cook for cause.
Document: Opinion
