WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday formally blocked President Trump’s bid to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for now – arguing such a dismissal from the White House could set a precedent that would politicize policy decisions.
But while the court protected Fed policymakers from being fired without cause, it effectively delivered a split verdict – ruling in a second decision Monday that Trump could fire officials at other independent regulatory agencies for any reason.
In a 5-4 decision for the Cook case, Chief Justice John Roberts said Cook “was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond prior to her termination,” and that allowing Trump to fire her would “turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment.”
In a Truth Social post Monday morning, Trump said the Cook case “was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis.”
“We will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!” the president added.
Trump attempted to fire Cook, a Biden appointee, on Aug. 25, 2025, via a Truth Social post, citing accusations by Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte that she had committed mortgage fraud as justification.
Cook has denied wrongdoing, and independent analyses have questioned Pulte’s claims, which date from before she was appointed to the Fed board in May 2022. Cook sued to block her removal and was granted an injunction by a DC federal judge, keeping her in her position while the case played out.
In a social media post Monday morning, Pulte signaled the administration will not be letting up on Cook anytime soon, writing: “As I have repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud.”
The justices in the Cook case were asked to weigh whether she was entitled to notice or an administrative hearing before her termination, nodding to the Federal Reserve Act, which stipulates that members of the Fed board can only be fired “for cause.”
However, the act does not specify what constitutes a “for cause” dismissal.
During oral arguments, attorneys for Cook claimed the statute only applied to “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” using language from other Progressive-era legislation such as the law creating the Federal Trade Commission in 1914.
Attorneys for the Trump administration, however, argued that cause for dismissal could include “misconduct, incompetence, failure to perform statutory duties, and any other faults ‘implying an unfitness for the place.’”
In the Cook case, Roberts said that allowing the president to fire Fed board members at will would encroach on the central bank’s independence.
Fed governors would know that any perceived misstep could lead to their removal from the board, which “would surely weigh” on their decisions regarding interest rates, he said.
The decision allows Cook to stay in her job for months or even years while her case goes back to the lower courts. Trump has not nominated anyone to replace her.
Former Fed Chair Jerome Powell – who Trump has called “stupid” and “hardheaded” for not slashing interest rates – and one of his predecessors, Ben Bernanke, attended oral arguments to show solidarity with Cook.
Kevin Warsh, Trump’s pick to replace Powell, took the helm at the Fed just weeks ago and delivered a surprisingly hawkish speech during his first meeting as chairman, after Dem senators had warned he would bend to the president’s pressure to lower rates.
Despite his insistence that he would only nominate a Fed chair who would lower rates, Trump gave a shockingly muted reaction, telling reporters “It’s alright, whatever” and calling Warsh “a very good guy.”
In a separate decision Monday involving the Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court expanded presidential authority in a 6-3 ruling that gives the president wide freedoms to fire leaders of other regulatory agencies for any reason.
The cases are among several the justices have heard this term dealing with the extent of the president’s executive power.
In February, the high court ruled that Trump could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose reciprocal tariffs on dozens of nations, forcing the administration to begin the process of refunding billions of dollars to businesses that had paid the levies since they were announced in April of last year.
