PK-LIVE NEWS

Key Points
The Supreme Court ruled President Donald Trump does not have the authority to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank for now.
The court did not rule whether Trump ultimately can fire Cook or any other member of the Fed. But it rejected Trump’s bid to stay a lower federal court ruling that had prevented her from being terminated as her lawsuit challenging her dismissal proceeds.
In a separate ruling, the court expanded presidential power in affirming Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank for now. But the opinion leaves open the possibility of dismissing her in the future.

The court did not rule whether Trump ultimately will have the power to fire Cook or any other member of the Fed.

Instead, the 5-4 ruling rejected Trump’s bid to pause a lower federal court ruling that had prevented her from being terminated as her lawsuit challenging her dismissal proceeds. Trump had claimed he sought to fire Cook because of allegations she committed mortgage fraud, which she adamantly denied.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority, which included his fellow conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well as the court’s three liberal members, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The four other conservative justices dissented.

“Not only the fact of independence but also the appearance of independence is key to the Federal Reserve’s design,” Roberts wrote.

In a footnote, Roberts said the ruling did not bar Trump from trying again to remove Cook over the alleged mortgage fraud if he chose to do so.

But the ruling said Trump’s first attempt failed because Cook was not given the due process she was owed under federal law. Any new move against her would require additional steps, including an explanation of the evidence against her, a way for her to respond and a deadline for that response.

“And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges,” Roberts wrote.

Trump, in a post on Truth Social after the ruling, said the court had sent the case back “on a strictly procedural basis” and vowed to take further action against Cook.

“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,” Trump wrote.

Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the court saw “no reason to leave the public in limbo, or to sow doubt as to the status of one of our Nation’s (and the world’s) most important financial institutions.”

Roberts said Congress had designed the Federal Reserve to operate with independence from the president and that any altering of that structure would have to come from lawmakers.

“Any change in that scheme must come from Congress, not the courts,” Roberts wrote. “That is why we cannot accept the Government’s contentions in this case. To do so would allow the President to remove a member of the Federal Reserve at any time, for any reason, without any notice before, and without any judicial check after.”

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that the court should not have issued such a sweeping opinion at this stage of Cook’s case.

“The nascency of this lawsuit and the novelty of the issues that it presents militated against holding oral argument and issuing a comprehensive opinion at this juncture.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate dissent, accused the majority of making “policy arguments” for an independent central bank that he said were “ultimately arguments against the Constitution.”