Trump v. Cook
The Court denies the Government's request to stay a District Court injunction that bars President Trump from removing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors. On a narrow ground, the Court holds that the President failed to give Cook the notice and opportunity to respond that the Federal Reserve Act requires before a Governor may be removed for cause, so Cook remains in office while the litigation continues.
Case background
In August 2025, President Trump purported to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — the first Governor ever removed in the central bank’s 111-year history. The move followed a social-media letter from the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency accusing Cook of mortgage fraud in connection with loans she had obtained before joining the Board. In his removal letter, the President stated that he had “reason to believe” Cook “may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements” and that he lacked “confidence in [her] integrity.” Cook promptly sued, alleging that the removal was not “for cause” as required by the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U. S. C. § 242, and that the President had in any event failed to provide the pretermination notice and opportunity to respond demanded by the statute and the Constitution. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing her removal, the Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction, and the Government applied to the Supreme Court for a stay.
Questions Presented
(1) This case came to the Court on the Government’s emergency application to stay the District Court’s injunction, not on a petition for certiorari, so no question was formally presented. The application asked whether the Government was entitled to a stay — in particular, whether it was likely to succeed in showing that the President could remove Cook and that she should not remain in office while the litigation continued.
Holding
The Government’s application for a stay is denied. The Government has not shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its stay application — arguments that, taken together, would transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment. The Court resolves the case on the narrow ground that the President failed to afford Cook the procedural protections she was entitled to by statute: before a Governor may be removed for cause, she must receive notice and some opportunity to respond, and Cook received neither. The Court further explains that the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection is consistent with the Constitution, reflecting a long tradition of independent central banking that traces back to the First and Second Banks of the United States. Because Cook did not receive the process she was due, the injunction keeping her in office remains in effect pending the litigation.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson each filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Trump v. Cook, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.