Cook’s Lawyer Admits Trump Can Fire His Client From The Fed

In a stunning admission, Democrat Lisa Cook’s attorney conceded that President Trump possesses the legal authority to remove his client from her role as a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.

The moment came during Wednesday’s Supreme Court oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, which centers around a request brought by the Trump administration to pause a lower court injunction preventing Cook’s removal. As The Federalist previously reported, Trump fired Cook in August over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud prior to joining the Fed.

During the hearing, Cook’s lawyer Paul Clement argued that Cook was unlawfully terminated by the president. More specifically, he echoed claims from his team’s brief in the case that pre-office allegations are not sufficient for removal and that Cook was not properly notified of her removal or given an opportunity to challenge the allegations against her.

Under questioning from Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, however, Clement conceded a major point — that Trump does, in fact, have the ultimate authority to remove Cook and other members of the Fed’s Board of Governors.

Clement argued that Trump’s initial efforts to fire Cook via Truth Social posts show he “wasn’t acting like a removing authority that was subject to any due process.” He further claimed that if the president “were sort of subject to that, he wouldn’t have said in his opening tweet, ‘You must resign,’ and he wouldn’t have said two days later, ‘Resign or be fired.”

Alito interjected, asking Clement whether — under his standard — such firing notices have to come from “a body of disinterested decision-makers — people who are not part of the executive branch and can exercise independent judgment that way?”

Clement answered in the negative and added that it “requires … notice and opportunity to provide evidence and a decision-maker who hasn’t prejudged the issue.” He acknowledged that such a “decision-maker can be the president,” but said he would “not necessarily recommend it as my choice A.”

Clement’s response prompted immediate pushback from Gorsuch, who questioned, “How can it not be the president? The statute authorizes the president to make the removal decision. How could it be anybody else?”

After receiving a sputtering answer, Gorsuch once again interjected and asked, “The president has to make the decision, right? Or delegate it to somebody who he wishes to make that decision, who’s reportable to him?”

“Yes, yes. At will,” Clement said. “Right. Absolutely. … The president can be the final decision-maker, but if he’s gonna be the final decision-maker and there’s a due process right … then, you know, he needs to be a little bit careful and say, ‘These are the allegations.’ He can’t start by pre-judging the issue by saying, ‘Resign.’”

As underscored by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in one of his questions to Clement, the statute at the center of the Trump v. Cook case does not explicitly stipulate that Fed Board members removed “for cause” by the president are entitled to “a hearing and review.”