DOJ filed emergency SCOTUS petition to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, challenging independent-agency firing protections

On September 18, 2025, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court of the United States seeking to lift injunctions that had blocked President Trump's removal of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook. Trump had fired Cook on August 25 without stating cause; U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a preliminary injunction on September 9 finding Cook had shown a "strong showing" that her firing violated the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" removal protection. On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected the administration's emergency appeal 2-1, finding Cook was likely to succeed on her due-process claim.

The Federal Reserve Act limits the president's authority to remove board governors to instances of "for cause" — a protection Congress enacted to shield the central bank's monetary policy decisions from presidential political pressure. The DOJ's emergency petition argued that allowing a sitting governor to remain in office "against the president's wishes" was "untenable and would wreak havoc on sensitive presidential decision-making." The petition was filed with explicit urgency: the Solicitor General sought action before the Federal Open Market Committee's scheduled September meeting, underscoring the administration's objective of influencing near-term interest-rate decisions.

The administration escalated to the Supreme Court — after two courts rejected the argument on the merits — asserting the right to fire an independent agency official in defiance of a statutory protection Congress designed specifically to prevent this form of political interference. The emergency framing, timed to a specific FOMC meeting, makes visible the administration's goal: not merely to prevail on legal principle, but to control monetary policy before a particular decision was made.

Updates

2026-06-29 — Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Trump lacked cause to remove Cook, must allow her to remain [3]

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that President Trump had failed to give Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook the procedural protections required before removing her under the Federal Reserve Act's "for cause" standard, and that she could remain on the Board of Governors while litigation continued. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Roberts rejected the government's argument that "for cause" amounted to at-will employment, calling that reading "an interpretive leap out of step with the text," and held that courts retained authority to order temporary reinstatement while a firing is contested.

The majority resolved the dispute on narrow grounds: "no matter the precise definition of cause, or the scope of our review of any such determination, the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protection" required by the Federal Reserve Act. Issued on the same day the court allowed Trump to fire members of other multi-member independent agencies by overruling Humphrey's Executor, the ruling carved out the Federal Reserve as a special case, citing the Fed's 111-year history of independence and the risk of monetary-policy manipulation. Justices Thomas, Alito (joined by Gorsuch), and Barrett filed separate dissents. The underlying litigation on whether Trump's stated reasons constituted lawful "cause" returns to the lower courts.