Trump asks US Supreme Court to allow firing of Fed Governor Lisa Cook

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2025, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: msn/Reuters

11m


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to let him move ahead with firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook - a move without precedent since the central bank's founding in 1913 - in a legal battle that imperils the Fed's independence.

The Justice Department asked the justices to lift U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb's September 9 order temporarily blocking the Republican president from removing Cook, an appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Cobb ruled that Trump's claims that Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office, which Cook denies, likely were not sufficient grounds for removal under the law that created the Fed.

"This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President's removal authority -here, interference with the President's authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause," the Justice Department said in the filing.

Cook took part in the Fed's highly anticipated two-day meeting in Washington on Tuesday and Wednesday in which the central bank decided to cut interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point, as policymakers responded to concerns about weakness in the job market. Cook was among those voting in favor of the cut announced on Wednesday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a 2-1 ruling on Monday denied the administration's request to put Cobb's order on hold. The Trump administration on Tuesday said it would ask the justices to intervene.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/trump-asks-us-supreme-court-to-allow-firing-of-fed-governor-lisa-cook/ar-AA1MPw86

---

Link to FILING (PDF viewer) - https://t.co/B4zqq38jX4

Link to FILING (PDF) - https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26103308/cook-case-stay-app.pdf

( to LetMyPeopleVote for filing link)

Running off to "Daddy Roberts" for the blessing.

[bluestarone]

1. I was waiting for this.

If they allow it, we WILL know our future! (my opinion of course)

[Prairie Gates]

2. I'm going to ask the Magic 8-Ball what the Corrupt Court will rule

[GreenWave]

3. Will SCROTUS tell him his statute of immunity has now expired!

Why? Bug bothering SCROTUS with too many frivolous requests.

Not holding my breath.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. How will he frame THIS as an "emergency "?

[50 Shades Of Blue]

5. SCOTUS: How high, sir?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. There is NO cause. Pulte, the ratfink who made the claim has parents who got slapped for housing fraud. . . . . nt

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. Here is a link to the filing

Link to tweet

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26103308-cook-case-stay-app/
I love the concept that due process is what trump says it is

Even if Cook had a property interest in her office, her removal complied withthe Due Process Clause. “[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural pro-tections as the particular situation demands.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481(1972). And courts owe “deference to the political branches” when applying the DueProcess Clause to matters within the political branches’ special competence. Fuld v.PLO, 606 U.S. 1, 23 (2025). Courts have no basis for demanding more process for theremoval of a principal executive officer than the political branches choose to provide......

Cook received “notice of the charges” against her, Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546,when the President publicized the criminal referral. See Compl. ¶ 43. The district court found the notice inadequate because it did not contain an “explanation of theevidence,” App., infra, 57a (ellipsis omitted), but the referral specifically identifiedthe contradictory representations in Cook’s mortgage documents, see p. 7, supra. The court did not say what more Cook needed to know.

Cook also had “an opportunity to present [her] side of the story,” Loudermill,470 U.S. at 546. The President made clear that he viewed Cook’s conduct as groundsto remove her, then waited five days for her to respond. The district court faulted thePresident for not “invit[ing] Cook to submit” evidence, App., infra, 58a, but the DueProcess Clause requires (at most) an opportunity to respond, not a formal invitation.Cook had an opportunity to explain why no misconduct occurred, and she spurned it.

[twodogsbarking]

8. Next up, Gavin Newsom.

[Bengus81]

9. Proven no crime committed as charged by Fat Hitler....BUT,that black woman needs fired anyway

Got it...can the MSM say NAZISM yet? Oh...we need to wait a few more months.

[Kid Berwyn]

10. All Fail King Trumpco!

I mean, Taco! Either way, he's an asshole and a traitor.