SCOTUS To Hear Arguments on Trump’s Firing Of Fed Reserve Board Member

The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a case testing President Donald Trump’s authority to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook, raising questions for some about the independence of the U.S. central bank versus the president’s ability to control the nation’s economic policy.

The justices scheduled Wednesday’s argument as part of Trump v. Cook, in which Cook is challenging her removal by Trump. The president has alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud prior to her appointment to the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, a charge she has denied and described as politically motivated.

Cook, an economist appointed to the Fed by President Joe Biden and the first black woman to serve on the Board of Governors, was tapped for a new 14-year term in 2023. Trump’s attempt to dismiss her this past year has been blocked by lower courts, which found she likely would succeed in arguing that the president did not meet the “for cause” standard required under the Federal Reserve Act.

Also, the Supreme Court in late Augustallowed her to remain in her position as the case proceeded.

The high court’s decision came months after most of the justices seemed to protect the Fed by calling it a “uniquely structured” entity with a “distinct historical tradition” that kept it out of presidential politics even though the high court has let Trump fire leaders at other agencies, like the Federal Trade Commission.

Legal experts say the case could have broader implications for the Federal Reserve’s legal insulation from political pressure. The Federal Reserve Act provides that governors may be removed only for cause, a provision intended to protect monetary policy from direct executive influence.

“I think they worry about the effect that removal of central bank independence could have on ⁠the economy,” said John Yoo, who served as a Justice Department lawyer under former President George W. Bush.

“It seems a basic principle of macroeconomics, backed up by the experience of other countries, that political control over the money supply, interest rates, and central banking will inevitably lead to inflation,” said Yoo, now a University of California, Berkeley, law professor.

Columbia Law School professor Kathryn Judge said the fights involving Fed independence and Trump’s tariffs “will be key in determining the scope of the president’s authority to unilaterally determine economic policy.”

“This Supreme Court has taken a very expansive approach to executive authority,” the judge said, “but it is not unbounded.”

“With each passing day — ⁠and with each passing attack by the Trump administration — I suspect that the court increasingly sees the ​value of an independent Fed,” University of Illinois Chicago law professor Steve ⁠Schwinn said.

Yoo added that “Trump is not helping his own case with the Department of Justice’s implausible criminal investigation” of Powell.

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has publicly criticized a Justice Department investigation into his own conduct as politically motivated, a probe tied to his congressional testimony about a costly Fed building project. Powell has said the inquiry is intended to push the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates—an assertion Trump denies.

Critics of Trump’s actions argue that efforts to oust Cook and target Powell reflect a broader attempt to influence Fed policy ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Supporters of the court challenge maintain that upholding statutory protections for Fed governors is essential to preserving the central bank’s independence.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected by June.

Cook is facing mounting allegations of mortgage fraud after federal housing regulators issued criminal referrals over discrepancies in her property filings.

CNN acknowledged the seriousness of the case last year, with legal analyst Elie Honig saying the suspicious activity was “really problematic” for Cook.