menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Supreme Court Allows Lower Court Blockade On Trump’s Federal Reserve Firing To Remain In Place

17 0
29.06.2026

1 Trending: The Obama Presidential Center Is Decidedly Meh

2 Trending: Democrats Suddenly Agree With Trump: Haiti Is A ‘S-hole Country’

3 Trending: Never Forget What The Covid ‘Experts’ Did To Us

4 Trending: Thomas, Alito Chide Rogue Judges For Ignoring SCOTUS And The Law

Supreme Court Allows Lower Court Blockade On Trump’s Federal Reserve Firing To Remain In Place

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court blockade against President Trump’s removal of Lisa Cook from the Fed.

Share Article on Facebook

Share Article on Twitter

Share Article on Truth Social

Share Article via Email

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to halt a lower court blockade against President Trump’s firing of Democrat Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve on Monday. The decision was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the court’s liberal justices in the majority.

Known as Trump v. Cook, the case deals with Trump’s August 2025 decision to fire Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud prior to her time at the agency. Cook’s legal team argued that she was unlawfully removed because she was not afforded a formal removal notice or hearing — claims which the government contended aren’t required under the “for cause” removal statute.

D.C. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, issued an injunction preventing Cook’s removal in September. The Trump administration filed its emergency application asking SCOTUS to permit Cook’s removal while litigation continued after its application to do so was rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In allowing Cobb’s injunction to remain in place, Roberts wrote for the majority that “Congress limited the President’s power to remove Governors for good reason — ‘[t]o preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve’ and to continue the ‘long tradition’ of ‘monetary policy . . . exercised independent of . . . executive influence.” Any proposed alteration to “that scheme,” he surmised, “must come from Congress, not the courts.”

“That is why we cannot........

© The Federalist