The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to let President Trump remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from office while her lawsuit challenging the president’s authority to permanently fire her winds its way through the courts.
The emergency application, filed with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., seeks an immediate administrative stay and, after briefing, a stay pending appeal. It followed a 2–1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that kept Cook in her job despite the removal effort. The timing was crucial: the appellate order arrived just before the Fed’s two-day policy meeting, allowing Cook to participate in Wednesday’s decision to cut interest rates. The next meeting is scheduled for Oct. 28–29.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices that courts may verify that a president identified a valid category of “cause” for removal, but when Congress confers broad for-cause authority without listing specific reasons, judges should not reweigh whether that cause is sufficient. “Due process is a flexible concept; whatever process is due to principal officers was provided here,” Sauer wrote, calling the lower court’s intervention “judicial micromanagement” of presidential decisions.
The dispute stems from allegations that in 2021, months before her appointment, Cook made contradictory “principal residence” statements on mortgage applications for a Michigan property and a Georgia condominium. Bill Pulte, who heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, publicized the claims and referred them to the Justice Department. Prosecutors have opened an investigation, according to people familiar with the matter. Cook has not been charged. She denies wrongdoing and calls the removal effort a political attack on Fed independence. Lenders generally offer lower interest rates for owner-occupied principal residences than for second homes, viewing the latter as riskier.
On Sept. 9, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb temporarily blocked the removal, concluding that “for cause” does not extend to pre-appointment, non-official conduct and pointing to concerns about notice and opportunity to respond. A divided D.C. Circuit panel left that order intact. Judges Bradley N. Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, formed the majority. Judge Gregory G. Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented, arguing that the president had identified valid cause related to Cook’s “integrity and competence.”
The administration advances three core arguments that could reshape oversight of presidential personnel decisions. First, it says Senate-confirmed principal offices are not “property” under the Fifth Amendment, and that civil-service precedents requiring pre-termination procedures do not govern principal officers. Second, it urges a limited judicial role under a bare for-cause clause: courts can confirm that the president invoked a recognized type of cause—integrity, fitness, competence—without second-guessing its sufficiency. Third, it argues that preliminary reinstatement is an extraordinary and improper remedy. Historically, wrongfully removed officials received post-judgment relief such as back pay, not orders compelling service during litigation, the administration argues.
The government warns that confining “cause” to in-office conduct would produce unreasonable outcomes. Under the lower court’s logic, it argues, discovering that a governor “committed murder before taking office” or “bribed a senator to ensure confirmation” would not qualify. “The president can 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—and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” the application says.
The filing points to historical practice to argue that Congress knows how to demand specific procedures when it wishes. When President Nixon removed the head of Fannie Mae under a broad “good cause” standard in the 1970s, no hearing was provided. By contrast, President Taft afforded hearings when removing officials under a more specific “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance” standard. The brief contends that the Federal Reserve Act’s general “for cause” language likewise does not mandate a pre-removal hearing.
The Supreme Court has, in emergency matters this term, allowed provisional removals at other independent bodies while litigation continued, over dissents by three justices. At the same time, the Court has described the Federal Reserve as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” with a distinct historical pedigree—a caveat both sides invoke. The administration says the Fed’s role heightens the government’s interest in ensuring unimpeachable integrity while litigation proceeds; Cook’s lawyers say that role warrants greater judicial caution.
Cook was appointed by Biden in 2022 to fill a partial term and reappointed in 2023 to a 14-year term ending in 2038. Her suit argues that unproven, pre-appointment personal conduct cannot trigger for-cause removal and that the administration’s effort is intended to vacate a seat the president could fill.
The Court’s initial decision—whether to grant an administrative stay—will determine whether Cook remains on the seven-member Board while the D.C. Circuit appeal continues, even as broader questions about the meaning of “for cause” and the scope of judicial review of presidential removals move toward resolution.
Read the full article here