‘This is the President’s unreviewable discretion’: Trump begs Supreme Court to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook

The Trump administration has officially asked the Supreme Court to lift the lower court rulings that are currently blocking President Donald Trump from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The request was made on Thursday, just one day after Cook participated in a meeting where the Federal Open Market Committee voted to cut the benchmark lending rate by a quarter of a percentage point.

The whole situation is a high-stakes showdown that’s been brewing for a while now. The administration has been trying to get Cook out of the way before key meetings, but so far, the courts have been siding with her. This isn’t a fight over a simple termination; it’s a major test of presidential power and the long-held independence of the Federal Reserve. According to CNBC, no president has ever fired a sitting Fed governor in the central bank’s 112-year history, so this is uncharted territory.

The controversy began back when President Trump announced he was firing Cook from her seat on the seven-member Fed board. His reasons were based on allegations of mortgage fraud related to two properties she owns. According to a filing by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, Cook had allegedly made “contradictory representations” in two separate mortgage agreements, claiming both a property in Michigan and one in Georgia were her “principal residence” at the same time.

Trump will not ease up on Cook, despite courts not agreeing with him

The filing suggests that this was done to get lower interest rates, which are typically offered for primary residence mortgages because lenders see them as less risky. However, Cook is fighting back, denying any wrongdoing and suing to block her removal.

Cook’s lawyers have argued that the mortgage fraud claims are just a pretext for Trump to get a Fed board that is more in line with his wishes for lower interest rates. It’s a classic case of he-said, she-said, but with monumental economic consequences.

This is where the legal battle gets really interesting. The Federal Reserve Act states that a president can only remove a governor “for cause”. A federal district court judge in Washington, D.C., sided with Cook on this, temporarily blocking her firing. Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the “for cause” provision is likely limited to misconduct that happens while a governor is actually in office, not for actions that occurred before they were appointed.

Since the alleged conduct happened in 2021, before she joined the board in 2022, Judge Cobb saw her firing as a violation of the act. The administration also lost an appeal to a three-judge panel on the Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to stay the order, allowing Cook to remain in her job and participate in the recent Fed meeting. The majority of that panel also said that Trump had violated Cook’s rights by not even giving her a chance to defend herself against the accusations.

Now, the administration is turning to the Supreme Court, arguing that these lower court rulings are “improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority”. In the filing, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the Justice Department is likely to win because Cook has no Fifth Amendment property interest in her job, and therefore her position is not protected by due process considerations.

He also said that the district judge was wrong to say that the alleged conduct, which happened before her appointment, isn’t a valid cause for removal. Sauer’s argument hinges on a powerful claim: that as long as the President identifies a “cause,” the determination of whether it relates to a person’s “conduct, ability, fitness, or competence” is “within the President’s unreviewable discretion”.