While the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a win on the removal-of-independent-agency-leaders front in the Slaughter case, on Monday, the Court, in Trump v. Cook, a case involving the removal of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, rejected the administration's request to pause the lower court's injunction, thus allowing Cook to remain in office while the litigation continues.

Advertisement

At issue in the case was whether the President can remove members of the Fed Board before the expiration of their terms. The ruling rejects the Trump administration's position that whether "cause" exists is committed solely to the President. By the same token, the ruling rejects Cook's contention that only misconduct while in office can qualify.

By way of background: 

Trump removed Fed Governor Lisa Cook in August of 2025. Cook challenged that removal, and the lower courts reinstated her. The case reached the Supreme Court on an emergency application for a stay, but after full briefing and oral argument, the Court issued an unusually extensive opinion.

RELATED: SCOTUS Says Lisa Cook Stays Put at the Fed - for Now

You're Fired: Trump Removes Federal Reserve Board Governor, Cites Criminal Referral

Chief Justice Roberts authored this decision as well. However, the split is different from Slaughter. It's a 5-4 decision, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining the Chief Justice. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissenting opinion, as did Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Justice Samuel Alito (with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining this one).

Advertisement

Read together, Monday's decisions make clear that while the Court is sharply expanding presidential control over most independent agencies, it views the Federal Reserve as a unique historical exception.

With today's ruling, the Court explains that "cause" must be interpreted in light of the Federal Reserve's unique role and history. Whether cause exists depends on the seriousness of the misconduct, its relationship to official duties, and whether the stated reason genuinely shows unfitness rather than serving as a pretext for replacing an independent policymaker.

Ultimately, the Court concludes that longstanding common-law principles incorporated into the Federal Reserve Act require notice, an opportunity to answer the allegations, and some pre-termination process. Because Trump removed Cook immediately, the administration is unlikely to succeed on appeal.

Roberts' decision emphasizes the unique constitutional position of the Federal Reserve, reasoning that the Founders deliberately insulated monetary policy from day-to-day presidential politics and that modern Federal Reserve independence fits squarely within that historical tradition.

Advertisement

Today's ruling does not decide whether Cook actually committed misconduct, whether mortgage fraud ultimately constitutes "cause," whether Trump can eventually remove her, or the constitutional status of every independent financial regulator. Instead, it decides only the standards governing the pending litigation and concludes the injunction should remain in place.

This is a developing story. RedState will have additional analysis shortly.

Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.

Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.