The Supreme Court just handed Trump another loss in his battle against the Fed

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook can remain on her job, the latest setback in President Donald Trump's effort to influence the central bank.

"To be clear, the ultimate question of whether the President can remove Cook for cause will depend in part on the underlying facts. In this opinion, we have not addressed the facts, as they have yet to be found or analyzed under the relevant legal standards," Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the court's majority.

In a 5-4 ruling, the court ruled that Cook can remain on her job while the broader legal fight continues in a lower federal court. Trump previously tried to oust Cook over allegations that she lied on her mortgage paperwork before she was nominated by President Joe Biden to join the central bank.

The ruling noted the Fed's role as an independent central bank, and said Cook's removal could set a precedent challenging that independence.

"To accept any one of those arguments would in effect transform the Federal Reserve's for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation's tradition of central banking protected from political interference. We therefore deny the Government's application," Roberts wrote.

Roberts also made clear that the court's majority disagrees with the White House's view that the nation's highest court could not question Trump's reasoning for attempting to fire Cook.

"Whether a Governor should be removed, it is true, is a decision only the President can make (short of impeachment)," he wrote. "But that does not mean that he may make that decision for any reason, or no reason."

Take a smarter break in your day - and see how far you get.

Monday's ruling caps a string of mostly losses for Trump and his administration in their long-running pressure campaign against the Fed. In April, US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced that the Justice Department was dropping a criminal investigation into then-Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

Trump characterized the ruling as largely procedural while suggesting he may take action again.

"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!" he wrote on Truth Social, his social media platform.

Cook and her attorneys have long taken the view that the true reason Trump tried to fire her was due to his frustration with the Fed not voting to cut interest rates in his preferred way, arguing that the president's actions were undermining the Fed's prized independence.

In a statement, Cook said she was "grateful for this decision, not for my own sake, but for the sake of the American people." The court's decision, she said, affirms the "bedrock principle" of the Fed's independence.

"This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor," Cook said in a statement released by her counsel. "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."

Like Cook, Powell said the investigation was designed to punish him for not supporting the extent of Trump's preferred rate cuts. Pirro had previously defended the investigation as a necessary response to cost overruns for the Fed's renovations of buildings in Washington, DC.

While Trump has lost multiple short-term battles, his long-term campaign to overhaul the Fed may bear some fruit. Before his confirmation as Fed chair, Wall Street executive Kevin Warsh vowed to bring "regime change" to how the central bank operates. Earlier this month, Warsh outlined how he'll change the Fed, from policy statements to how it uses AI.

In a break from recent precedent, Powell is remaining as a Federal Reserve governor even after his term as chair expired — meaning Trump will likely make one fewer appointment to the central bank.

Roberts was joined in his decision by fellow conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh and all three of the court's liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett filed their own dissenting opinions. Justice Samuel Alito filed a third, separate dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.

In his dissent, Thomas wrote that Trump satisfied the requirements of the underlying law when he fired Cook and that she was not entitled to more due process. He also questioned the majority's focus on the central bank's independence.

"If the Court prefers an independent Federal Reserve Board, then its issue is not with the President but with the Constitution," Thomas wrote. "Regardless of whether unaccountable executive officers like Cook would better govern the economy, the Framers rejected such a 'promised land of technocratic governance,'" Thomas wrote, quoting a separate opinion on Trump's firing powers that was released on Monday.

In that case, the Supreme Court overturned a 91-year-old ruling that had limited the president's authority to fire members of other independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission.

Every time publishes a story, you’ll get an alert straight to your inbox!

Look out for an alert in your inbox the next time publishes a story!

Every time a new story is published, you’ll get an alert straight to your inbox!

Look out for an alert in your inbox the next time a new story is published!