Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Trump v. Cook
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Trump v. Cook
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf
Case background
In August 2025, President Trump purported to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — the first Governor ever
removed in the central bank’s 111-year history. The move followed a
social-media letter from the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
accusing Cook of mortgage fraud in connection with loans she had obtained
before joining the Board. In his removal letter, the President stated that he
had “reason to believe” Cook “may have made false statements on one or more
mortgage agreements” and that he lacked “confidence in [her] integrity.” Cook
promptly sued, alleging that the removal was not “for cause” as required by
the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U. S. C. § 242, and that the President had in any
event failed to provide the pretermination notice and opportunity to respond
demanded by the statute and the Constitution. The District Court issued a
preliminary injunction preventing her removal, the Court of Appeals declined
to stay the injunction, and the Government applied to the Supreme Court for a
stay.
Questions Presented
(1) This case came to the Court on the Government’s emergency application to stay the District Court’s injunction, not on a petition for certiorari, so no question was formally presented. The application asked whether the Government was entitled to a stay — in particular, whether it was likely to succeed in showing that the President could remove Cook and that she should not remain in office while the litigation continued.
Holding
The Government’s application for a stay is denied. The Government has not
shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its
stay application — arguments that, taken together, would transform the
Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment. The Court
resolves the case on the narrow ground that the President failed to afford
Cook the procedural protections she was entitled to by statute: before a
Governor may be removed for cause, she must receive notice and some
opportunity to respond, and Cook received neither. The Court further explains
that the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection is consistent with the
Constitution, reflecting a long tradition of independent central banking that
traces back to the First and Second Banks of the United States. Because Cook
did not receive the process she was due, the injunction keeping her in office
remains in effect pending the litigation.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices
Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson each
filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice
Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Barrett
filed a dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Trump v. Cook, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.
View all episodes
By So OrderedOpinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf
Case background
In August 2025, President Trump purported to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System — the first Governor ever
removed in the central bank’s 111-year history. The move followed a
social-media letter from the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency
accusing Cook of mortgage fraud in connection with loans she had obtained
before joining the Board. In his removal letter, the President stated that he
had “reason to believe” Cook “may have made false statements on one or more
mortgage agreements” and that he lacked “confidence in [her] integrity.” Cook
promptly sued, alleging that the removal was not “for cause” as required by
the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U. S. C. § 242, and that the President had in any
event failed to provide the pretermination notice and opportunity to respond
demanded by the statute and the Constitution. The District Court issued a
preliminary injunction preventing her removal, the Court of Appeals declined
to stay the injunction, and the Government applied to the Supreme Court for a
stay.
Questions Presented
(1) This case came to the Court on the Government’s emergency application to stay the District Court’s injunction, not on a petition for certiorari, so no question was formally presented. The application asked whether the Government was entitled to a stay — in particular, whether it was likely to succeed in showing that the President could remove Cook and that she should not remain in office while the litigation continued.
Holding
The Government’s application for a stay is denied. The Government has not
shown that it is likely to prevail on the legal arguments advanced in its
stay application — arguments that, taken together, would transform the
Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment. The Court
resolves the case on the narrow ground that the President failed to afford
Cook the procedural protections she was entitled to by statute: before a
Governor may be removed for cause, she must receive notice and some
opportunity to respond, and Cook received neither. The Court further explains
that the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection is consistent with the
Constitution, reflecting a long tradition of independent central banking that
traces back to the First and Second Banks of the United States. Because Cook
did not receive the process she was due, the injunction keeping her in office
remains in effect pending the litigation.
The Court
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices
Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson each
filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice
Alito filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Barrett
filed a dissenting opinion.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in
Trump v. Cook, written by Justice Roberts.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine
learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone,
inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be
attributed to Justice Roberts. The text being read is the Court’s published
majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.