In an intriguing turn of events, the Supreme Court has decided to sift through the murky waters of presidential powers by hearing a case involving Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook. The court’s order, issued on October 1, allows Cook to remain in her post while she contests former President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire her. The upcoming oral arguments are set for January 2026, a date that might as well be a century away in the fast-paced world of politics.
According to the court’s directive, “The application for stay presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is deferred pending oral argument in January 2026.” This nifty piece of legal jargon essentially allows Cook to breathe a temporary sigh of relief as the court sets the stage for future deliberations.
The backstory here is the fundamental clash over the extent of a president’s control over key executive branch positions. Trump had implored the court to intervene after a lower court halted the termination, and the Supreme Court’s recent order effectively allows Cook to hold onto her position—at least for now.
This case, alongside another titled Trump v. Slaughter, raises significant questions about pre-existing limits on presidential authority. The crux of the matter harks back to the respected precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, where the court established that Congress could impose constraints on the president’s ability to dismiss certain officials.
In December, the Supreme Court is expected to deliberate on the Trump v. Slaughter case, which revolves around his aim to fire a Federal Trade Commission member. The stakes are high, as decisions in both cases could redefine the balance of power between the presidency and regulatory bodies.
Cook’s ousting was claimed to be based on alleged falsehoods in her mortgage applications—a charge Trump communicated in a letter dated August 25, accusing her of misrepresenting her primary residence. “It is inconceivable that you were not aware of your first commitment when making the second,” he asserted, exhibiting all the subtlety of a sledgehammer in the world of nuanced legal discourse.
Under the Federal Reserve Act, which provides the president the authority to remove board members “for cause,” the interpretation of what constitutes sufficient cause is under scrutiny. The question looms large: what qualifies as a valid reason for dismissal? A legal expert from Georgetown University has suggested Trump’s allegations might compel a high court ruling on the standards required for a “for cause” firing—a standard traditionally tied to serious misconduct.
Cook, for her part, argues that Trump’s reasoning lacks legally recognized validity and could undermine the historical independence of the Federal Reserve. Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, characterized the court’s decision as a win for institutional integrity, indicating enthusiasm for further proceedings in line with the court’s directive.
Historically, Trump has had the Supreme Court’s blessing when it comes to dismissing bureaucrats without the formality of oral arguments, much to the dismay of Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who have pushed back against such actions. Kagan has notably asserted that the president cannot, as he did in this instance, remove an FTC Commissioner without justifiable cause—an endorsement of the standards set by Humphrey’s Executor.
The ruling from that key case articulated that Congress holds the power to restrict the president’s removals if the agency principals operate in quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial capacities. While the Supreme Court has yet to issue its final word on the matter, it appears to regard the Federal Reserve’s unique, quasi-private nature differently than that of the labor boards from which Trump has removed officials in the past, hinting at a more nuanced interpretation.
In a May opinion, the Supreme Court indicated skepticism about comparing the status of dismissed officials with those at the Federal Reserve. The latter, they noted, exists within a distinct historical context—rooted deeply in the fabric of U.S. financial governance.
Andrew Moran contributed to this report.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have faced threats, arrests, and assault, yet our commitment to independent journalism remains unwavering. This year marks our 25th year of independent reporting, unhindered by corporate or political influences.
For a limited time, we invite you to join millions celebrating independent news with our introductory offer of just $1 per week.
