(Official White House photo by Molly Riley)

The Supreme Court held in a 5‑4 ruling that the president can’t fire members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors without cause while litigation continues.

The majority held that President Donald Trump’s attempted firing of Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook violated the statutory requirement that the removal be for cause only. The justices determined that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard before her removal, affirming a lower court ruling in Cook’s favor.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, and the court’s three Democrat appointees were in the majority.

“The statute provides that each member of the Board of Governors ‘shall hold office for a term of fourteen years . . . , unless sooner removed for cause by the President. … Whether a governor should be removed, it is true, is a decision only the President can make (short of impeachment),” Roberts wrote for the majority. “But that does not mean that he may make that decision for any reason, or no reason. Even when a statute ‘delegates discretionary authority’ to the Executive Branch, we have explained, our role ‘is, as always, to independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of Congress subject to constitutional limits.’”

“No matter the precise definition of cause, or the scope of our review of any such determination, the president failed to afford Cook the procedural protections to which she was entitled by statute,” Roberts later added. “Without such protections, she could not properly dispute the charges the President laid against her. We thus need not address Cook’s constitutional due process argument, for the statute alone makes it unlikely that the Government will prevail on appeal as to the validity of the procedures used to fire Cook.”

Justices heard the case of Trump v. Cook in January. In an October emergency docket ruling, the court ruled that Cook could continue in her job after Trump attempted to oust her, while the justices further considered the matter.

Lisa Cook (Official portrait)

The question in the case is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors without cause or whether the organization created in 1913 is independent of those executive actions.

Members of the board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president removed a board member.

Critics of the firing say it jeopardizes the independence of the Fed. Supporters of the move have countered that government boards and commissions should be more accountable to elected officials.

Trump justified the removal based on alleged misstatements made by Cook on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and contested the firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act, which includes due process for the employee.

The administration argued the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and that the allegations of misstatements on mortgage statements meet the standard.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the dissenting opinion.

“The court’s decision is incorrect. Cook’s office was not her ‘property’ because, in this country, government officials do not own the public offices in which they serve,” Thomas wrote. “Apparent mortgage fraud was a ’cause’ to remove Cook. And, the statute authorizing the President to remove Cook for ’cause’ says nothing about notice or a hearing, so it does not require notice and a hearing. Any other result would violate Article II of the Constitution, under which the president may remove executive officers at will.”

[Editor’s note: This story originally was published by The Daily Signal.]