The US Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's request to overturn a lower court's ruling that prevented him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
In August 2025, Trump attempted to fire Cook over mortgage fraud allegations. Cook challenged the decision in a federal court, which issued a temporary restraining order that blocked the attempted removal.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to leave the lower court's order in place, with Chief Justice John Roberts authoring the majority opinion.
Trump "failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute," Roberts said. "Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the president laid against her."
"We cannot accept the government's contentions in this case," Roberts said. "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."
Cook should have received a chance to explain herself, he wrote.
"Only after Cook has had the opportunity to respond to the charges made against her may a final decision be made," Roberts said. "And only then can the courts assess the validity and sufficiency of such charges."
Trump said his administration will take appropriate action to ensure "someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the welfare of the United States of America," according to a social media post.
Cook suggested the attempted removal was more of a political move.
"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor," Cook said in a statement. "It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people."
Roberts left open the question of whether Trump can eventually remove Cook.
"The ultimate question of whether the president can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts," Roberts said. "In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards."
