Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Remove Fed Gov. Lisa Cook/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. Trump accuses Cook of past mortgage fraud, though she denies wrongdoing and hasn’t been charged. A lower court blocked her removal, citing legal protections for Fed board members.
Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Remove Lisa Cook – Quick Looks
- Trump asks Supreme Court to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook immediately.
- Appeals court denied Trump’s previous attempt to fire Cook.
- Trump accuses Cook of past mortgage fraud, which she denies.
- Cook insists she won’t resign and calls the accusations political.
- Legal dispute centers on whether Fed governors can be fired “for cause.”
- District judge ruled that alleged misconduct predated Cook’s Fed appointment.
- Cook’s next vote on interest rates is scheduled for late October.
- Trump’s filing seeks both emergency and long-term removal orders.
- Supreme Court historically protects Fed independence from political interference.
Deep Look: Trump Petitions Supreme Court to Remove Lisa Cook
WASHINGTON — In a rare and controversial legal maneuver, the Trump administration has filed an emergency petition with the U.S. Supreme Court to remove Lisa Cook from her position on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The move intensifies a months-long political and legal standoff, one that challenges the central bank’s historical independence and sets a precedent for executive power over monetary policy.
On Thursday, the administration appealed directly to Chief Justice John Roberts, seeking a temporary order to oust Cook from the seven-member board, as well as a longer-term ruling by the full court. This comes after a federal district court and a U.S. appeals court both rejected Trump’s previous efforts to remove Cook, who was appointed in 2022 by President Joe Biden.
Legal, Political, and Personal Stakes Collide
Lisa Cook, a respected economist and the first Black woman to serve on the Fed board, has been under fire from the Trump administration over allegations tied to her 2021 mortgage applications. Trump accuses her of falsely claiming two different properties in Michigan and Georgia as her “primary residence” within the same period—a strategy that could potentially allow someone to secure lower interest rates or reduced down payments.
However, documents reviewed by the Associated Press appear to contradict the accusations. One loan estimate shows Cook labeled her Atlanta condo as a “vacation home,” while a separate security clearance form classified it as a “second home.” Cook has not been charged with any crime and maintains her innocence.
“I will not be bullied and will continue to fulfill my duties as a Senate-confirmed Fed governor,” Cook has stated through her attorney, Abbe Lowell.
Why the Supreme Court?
The Trump administration’s legal argument rests on the claim that Cook’s alleged mortgage misrepresentations, even if they occurred before her appointment, undermine her trustworthiness to help set the nation’s interest rates. In a brief filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the White House contended:
“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 facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself.”
Yet, the courts have so far disagreed. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that Cook’s alleged misconduct took place prior to her appointment and therefore does not meet the legal threshold of “for cause” required to remove a sitting Fed governor. Cobb also found that Cook was denied due process, as she was not given the opportunity to contest the termination.
A three-judge panel from the federal appeals court in Washington upheld Cobb’s decision in a 2-1 vote earlier this week, prompting Trump’s legal team to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
A Historic Power Struggle Over the Fed
If successful, this would mark the first time in the Federal Reserve’s 112-year history that a sitting president has forcibly removed a Fed governor. Traditionally, the Fed has operated with a degree of insulation from political interference, particularly in decisions related to monetary policy, interest rates, and inflation control.
While Trump has succeeded in reshaping leadership at other independent agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and National Labor Relations Board—where Supreme Court rulings have allowed removals without cause—legal scholars and precedent suggest the Fed enjoys greater protection under U.S. law.
The high court itself has previously distinguished the Fed’s legal status from that of other agencies, hinting that governors can only be removed under strict circumstances tied to official misconduct.
Immediate Impact on Fed Decisions
Cook remains an active participant in monetary policy discussions. On Wednesday, she and newly confirmed Trump appointee Stephen Miran both voted in the Fed’s decision to cut its benchmark interest rate by 0.25%. Her next opportunity to vote will come during the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting scheduled for October 28–29.
Despite the legal turmoil, the Biden administration and Federal Reserve leadership have backed Cook’s continued service. Economic analysts say her removal—particularly under contested and unproven allegations—could damage global confidence in the independence of the U.S. central bank.
Looking Ahead
If the Supreme Court grants the Trump administration’s emergency request, Cook could be removed temporarily as the larger constitutional case plays out. However, if the court denies the request or ultimately sides with Cook, it will reaffirm long-standing boundaries between political authority and the financial system.
This case not only tests the limits of presidential power but also shines a spotlight on the integrity of financial governance in an increasingly politicized era.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.