Supreme Court Allows Lisa Cook to Remain on Federal Reserve Board Pending January Hearing
Left

Supreme Court Upholds Lisa Cook’s Right to Serve, Defying Trump’s Authoritarian Overreach

Select a version of the text written from a presumed ideological perspective. This is not the original text, but a hypothetical version — how someone with that viewpoint might have phrased it. Tapping the current version again will return to the original or select cleaned version.

Summary

The Supreme Court has protected Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from President Trump’s baseless attempt to oust her, allowing her to continue her vital work while the Court prepares to hear the case in January.

In a significant victory for democratic institutions and the rule of law, the Supreme Court has decided to allow Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in her position while it prepares to hear arguments in January regarding President Donald Trump’s politically motivated effort to remove her from the central bank.

President Trump, in August, sought to dismiss Cook, using unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud from 2021—accusations that predate her tenure at the Federal Reserve and have never resulted in criminal charges. Cook has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing, yet Trump’s administration continues its campaign of character assassination against a highly qualified Black woman in public service.

A federal judge previously ruled that the administration’s attempt to fire Cook failed to meet the legal standard that Federal Reserve governors can only be dismissed "for cause," specifically for misconduct while in office. The judge also found that Trump’s move would have violated Cook’s due process rights, highlighting the administration’s disregard for constitutional protections.

The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that Cook will remain an active participant in the Federal Reserve’s crucial upcoming meetings, including the next interest rate-setting committee meeting in late October. This is a critical moment for economic policy, and Cook’s expertise should not be sidelined by partisan attacks.

This case is emblematic of the broader struggle against executive overreach and the right-wing agenda to undermine independent federal agencies. The Supreme Court is also set to hear arguments in December on whether the president can arbitrarily fire members of other independent agency boards, a move that threatens the very foundation of checks and balances in government.

Source

AP News

Fact-checking

Fact-check the facts of the article using external sources and databases.

Confirmed

The Supreme Court has decided to allow Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to remain in her position while it prepares to hear arguments in January regarding President Donald Trump's effort to remove her from the central bank.

Confirmed

In August, President Trump sought to dismiss Cook, citing allegations of mortgage fraud from 2021, prior to her tenure at the Federal Reserve.

Confirmed

Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.

Confirmed

A federal judge previously ruled that the administration had not satisfied the legal requirement that Federal Reserve governors can only be fired 'for cause,' which is limited to misconduct while in office.

Confirmed

The judge also held that Trump's firing would have deprived Cook of her due process rights.

Confirmed

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case in January means Cook will participate in the Federal Reserve's upcoming meetings, including the next interest rate-setting committee meeting in late October.

Confirmed

This case is part of a broader legal debate over the president's authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies.

Confirmed

The Supreme Court is also set to hear arguments in December on whether the president can fire members of the boards that oversee other independent federal agencies at will.

FL Plus

Read the full story with FL Plus

Unlimited news plus the analysis behind every headline.

Unlimited news feed
See why each story scored
Full fact-check details