Roberts, Kavanaugh join liberal SCOTUS Justices against Trump's Fed firing 

The Supreme Court dealt President Donald Trump a major setback in his effort to remove a Federal Reserve governor, splitting 5—4 to keep Lisa Cook in her position while a high-stakes legal fight over presidential authority continues.

In Trump v. Cook, the justices denied the administration’s request to pause a lower-court ruling that blocked Cook’s firing, meaning she will remain on the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors during ongoing litigation.

Conservative Justices John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority.

"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor," Cook said in a statement emailed to Newsweek. "It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure."

But President Trump hit back on Monday with a post on Truth Social: "The Cook Lawsuit, having to do with her suitability in sitting on the Board of the Federal Reserve, was sent back by the Supreme Court on a strictly procedural basis, we will take appropriate action immediately to make sure that someone who has committed wrongdoing will not be making vital decisions concerning the Welfare of the United States of America!".

The decision, while procedural, signals significant resistance from the court to expanding presidential power over the central bank and keeps protections for the Federal Reserve’s independence in place for now. The case is widely seen as a major test of whether a president can reshape the Federal Reserve by removing governors—a move that could shift control over interest rates and economic policy.

Cook's firing was the first in the 111-year history of the central bank, according to the order issued Monday.

"I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet," Cook said in a statement in August 2025.

Under the Federal Reserve Act, board members serve fixed 14-year terms and can only be removed "for cause," a safeguard designed to insulate monetary policy from political pressure.

"Under the Court’s precedents, Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond before her termination. When Congress created the Federal Reserve, it gave Governors a set term in office and permitted removal only 'for cause.' That form of tenure—a term of years limited only by removal 'for cause'—carried with it a settled interpretation at common law, one that the Court had expressly adopted just a decade before," the ruling reads.

By refusing to intervene, the Supreme Court leaves in place lower court findings that the firing may have violated both the statute and constitutional due process protections.

Cook is a Federal Reserve governor appointed by former President Joe Biden and confirmed to a full term that runs through 2038. An economist and former Michigan State University professor, she is one of seven officials responsible for shaping U.S. monetary policy, including interest rate decisions.

The case stems from Trump’s August 2025 decision to fire Cook, citing allegations she engaged in mortgage fraud before joining the Fed. Cook sued days later, arguing the move violated the Federal Reserve Act’s "for cause" requirement and her Fifth Amendment right to due process.

A federal judge blocked the removal, and an appeals court declined to lift that order—prompting the administration to seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.

The allegations center on claims that Cook misrepresented two properties as her primary residence on mortgage applications in 2021, potentially to secure better loan terms. Such "owner-occupancy" designations can lead to lower interest rates and more favorable financing conditions.

Cook has denied wrongdoing, and no charges have been filed.

Reporting has also cited documents suggesting at least one property was listed as a vacation home, raising questions about the strength of the allegations.

In a narrow 5—4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to pause the lower court’s injunction, effectively keeping Cook in office while the case proceeds. The order does not resolve the broader legal question of whether Trump had the authority to fire Cook but indicates the court is not prepared, at this stage, to allow her removal to take effect.

"Even if the determination of cause is judicially reviewable and the definition of cause imposes a substantial threshold, the Government (joined by JUSTICE THOMAS) contends that federal courts cannot grant a preliminary injunction ordering reinstatement during the pendency of litigation," the order reads.

"On their view, all that a court may do is wait, and perhaps award backpay later—even if the President fires a member
of the Board for an absurd reason, or no reason, and even if the court holds that he broke the law in doing so."

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas backed Trump's firing of Cook, saying, "The President’s removal of Cook did not violate the Due Process Clause. That Clause prohibits the Federal Government from depriving a person of 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.'"

"Cook has no property right to hold power on the Board. In our system of government, a "public office is not property," he continued.

The case will continue through the courts and could ultimately return to the Supreme Court for a final ruling on the merits. That decision is expected to define the limits of presidential power over independent agencies and determine whether long-standing protections insulating the Federal Reserve from political control will endure.

Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Gabe Whisnant and Sam Wilson.