The U.S. Supreme Court justices appear reluctant to grant President Donald Trump’s request to immediately remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. However, legal experts suggest that the eventual ruling may be a narrow decision, potentially returning the matter to a trial court for further fact-finding. This could delay resolving broader questions about Trump’s authority to oust Cook or a president’s power to fire Fed officials. Such a scenario could see the case return to the Supreme Court at a later date.
Trump’s attempt to fire Cook and a separate criminal investigation against Fed Chair Jerome Powell represent a significant challenge to the central bank’s independence since its inception in 1913. The Federal Reserve System is the central bank of the United States. It conducts the nation’s monetary policy, regulates banking institutions, and maintains the stability of the financial system.
During arguments, some justices noted the rapid progression of Cook’s case, leaving limited time for weighing evidence and resolving complex legal questions. Conservative Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether a full evidentiary record of Trump’s basis for removing Cook had been established. Other justices raised concerns about the potential economic impact of granting Trump’s request to remove Cook immediately, with economists warning of a possible recession.
Legal experts suggest the Supreme Court’s ruling may come as a concise order denying Trump’s request without extensive legal reasoning. Alternatively, they might rule in Cook’s favour by focusing on the insufficient process afforded to her in challenging the accusations, avoiding the broader question of the Fed’s independence. Trump, however, stated that he did not perceive the court as skeptical of his attempt to fire Cook, suggesting the court simply preferred a more conventional legal process. The court’s ruling is anticipated by the end of June but could be delivered sooner.
