The U.S. Supreme Court refused on Monday (June 29, 2026) to let Donald Trump fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook as it stood firm to preserve the central bank’s cherished independence against an unprecedented challenge by the Republican President.
The court, in a 5-4 ruling, blocked Mr. Trump’s bid to become the first President to remove a Fed official since Congress created the central bank in 1913. In his second term as President, Mr. Trump has tested the limits of presidential power in numerous other ways as well.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh were in the majority, along with the court’s three liberal justices. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented.
Mr. Roberts, who authored the ruling, said Mr. Trump “failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute. Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the president laid against her.”
The Federal Reserve’s governors “do not serve at the president’s pleasure – they instead serve staggered 14 year terms, and may be removed only ‘for cause,’” Mr. Roberts added.
Mr. Trump last August had cited unproven mortgage fraud allegations in trying to oust Ms. Cook, the first Black woman to serve as a Fed Governor, while she called that a pretext to remove her for monetary policy differences.
‘I refused to bow’
In a statement on Monday (June 29, 2026), Ms. Cook welcomed the court’s decision, saying it affirms the Fed’s obligation to make policy decisions independently, free from political interference.
“This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people,” Ms. Cook said.
The Justices denied a request from Mr. Trump’s Justice Department to lift a Judge’s order barring him from immediately firing Cook while her legal challenge to the termination continues to play out. Ms. Cook denied Mr. Trump’s allegations.
In another ruling on Monday (June 29, 2026), the Supreme Court backed Mr. Trump’s firing of Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic Federal Trade Commission member, expanding his powers over the government and overturning its 1935 precedent that had recognised the authority of Congress to protect leaders of certain regulatory agencies from presidential removal at will.
Monday’s (June 29, 2026) Ms. Cook ruling follows the February 20 decision by the Justices in another case with major economic ramifications to strike down most of Mr. Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, a ruling that elicited a vitriolic condemnation of the court by the president.
The Fed is the world’s most important central bank, an institution that determines the cost of credit for the United States and beyond and which has been in Trump’s crosshairs since his return to the presidency in January 2025.
Ms. Cook’s term in the job was due to run until 2038. She was appointed by Democratic former President Joe Biden in 2022.
Mr. Trump’s targeting of Ms. Cook and a separate criminal investigation his administration launched in January, but later dropped, against then-Fed Chair Jerome Powell together represented the biggest challenge to the central bank’s independence since its founding.
May 15 was the final day of Mr. Powell’s eight years as Fed chair, though he remains a member of its Board of Governors. The U.S. Senate on May 13 voted to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominee Kevin Warsh as Mr. Powell’s successor, and he was sworn in on May 22.
When the Justices in October agreed to hear the case involving Ms. Cook, they left her in the post for the time being. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in January, with Ms. Cook and Mr. Powell in attendance.
The Federal Reserve Act
In creating the Fed in 1913, Congress passed a law called the Federal Reserve Act that included provisions to shield the central bank from political interference, requiring governors to be removed by a president only “for cause,” though the law does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal.
While Monday’s (June 29, 2026) ruling did not define exactly what could constitute “cause” under which a president could fire Cook or other board members, Roberts said that the central bank’s history and independence suggested it should be a “substantial threshold.”
“Without such constraints in place, any perceived or alleged misstep (past or present) could provide a ready pretext for a governor’s removal — a fact that he would surely know, and that would surely weigh on him as he decided what to say and how to vote,” Mr. Roberts wrote. “Nothing could be more corrosive of the independence that Congress sought to preserve.”
Mr. Roberts said that while, short of impeachment, only the president can decide whether to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board, “that does not mean that he may make that decision for any reason, or no reason.”
“Congress could of course afford the president the power to remove Federal Reserve Governors at will,” Mr. Roberts wrote. “Or Congress could exempt the president’s removal of governors for cause from judicial review. But Congress has done neither.”
Mr. Trump sought to fire Ms. Cook on August 25, 2025, by posting a termination letter on social media citing the allegations disclosed by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, a Mr. Trump appointee, involving homes owned by her in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta.
Mr. Pulte wrote on social media on Monday (June 29, 2026), “As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud.”
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in September ruled that Mr. Trump’s attempt to remove Ms. Cook without notice or a hearing likely violated her right to due process under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. The Judge also said the allegations made against Ms. Cook likely were not a legally sufficient cause to remove her under the Federal Reserve Act as they relate to conduct that occurred before she served in the post.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined Mr. Trump’s request to put Mr. Cobb’s order on hold.
The wishes of politicians
Mr. Trump has heaped pressure on the central bank to cut interest rates more rapidly and more deeply than it has been willing to do as it combats persistent inflation, and lashed out repeatedly at Mr. Powell for not complying with his wishes.
The Cook case has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to the wishes of politicians, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to carry out tasks such as keeping inflation under control.
As a Fed governor, Ms. Cook helps set U.S. monetary policy with the rest of the central bank’s seven-member board and the heads of the 12 regional Fed banks.
In prior cases, the Supreme Court chipped away at the independence of various federal agencies from presidential control, and could soon overrule a key precedent that has shielded the heads of independent agencies from removal since 1935.
But the court last year signaled it may view the central bank as an exception, noting in a May 2025 ruling that let Mr. Trump remove two Democratic members of federal labor boards that the Fed possesses a unique structure and historical tradition.
Presidential power
Both Ms. Cook’s case and the fight over tariffs involved the legal fallout from Mr. Trump aggressively pushing the limits of presidential power since returning to office in January 2025.
Mr. Trump has also used executive authority to quickly transform policies on immigration, military service, federal employment and beyond. To date, the Supreme Court has allowed most of those policies to go ahead despite legal challenges, on a preliminary basis, though the tariffs decision was a major exception.
In the tariffs ruling, the court repudiated a signature piece of Mr. Trump’s economic agenda by invalidating his tariffs imposed on nearly every U.S. trading partner under a 1977 law meant for use in national emergencies – also something no other president had done.
Mr. Trump reacted furiously to that ruling, saying he was “absolutely ashamed” of some of the justices and called the court’s Republican appointees – including two of his own – who ruled against him “fools” and “lapdogs” for Democrats.
As in other legal disputes, the administration argued for an expansive view of Mr. Trump’s power in Ms. Cook’s case, saying that so long as the President identifies a cause for removal, that is within his “unreviewable discretion.”
Ms. Cook’s lawyers argued that granting him that power would eviscerate the Fed’s independence, disrupt markets and create a roadmap for future presidents to direct monetary policy.
The Powell investigation
Like Ms. Cook, Mr. Powell called the administration’s action against him – an investigation involving cost overruns in a project to renovate two historical buildings at the Fed’s Washington headquarters – a pretext aimed at gaining influence over monetary policy. A judge on March 13 blocked subpoenas issued in the Powell investigation by a prosecutor appointed by Mr. Trump, agreeing with Mr. Powell that the probe was an improper attempt to intimidate the central bank into cutting interest rates. The prosecutor dropped the investigation on April 24.
Mr. Trump has publicly called Mr. Powell a “numbskull,” a “major loser” and “very incompetent.”
Mr. Trump in January nominated Mr. Warsh, who previously served on the Fed’s Board of Governors and whose father-in-law is wealthy Trump booster Ron Lauder. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas administered the oath of office for Mr. Warsh during his swearing-in ceremony, and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh was in attendance.
The Justice Department dropped the Powell investigation after Republican Senator Thom Tillis called the inquiry a frivolous assault on the Fed’s independence and vowed to block Warsh’s confirmation until it was ended.
In what is called a criminal referral, Mr. Pulte asked the Justice Department last year to open a criminal investigation into Ms. Cook and others over alleged mortgage fraud. There has been no indication of any such criminal investigation moving forward.
As Mr. Pulte pushed the accusations, Reuters found that his father and stepmother declared the same status as Ms. Cook on two homes in two different states. These “homestead exemptions” for residences are meant to give a discount to homeowners on taxes for properties they use as their primary residence. The property tax authority in Ann Arbor told Reuters that Ms. Cook had not broken rules for tax breaks on her home despite Mr. Pulte’s allegations.
