DOJ Asks SCOTUS To Stop ‘Interference’ With Fed Governor Firing

The Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to shut down lower courts’ “interference” with President Trump’s efforts to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

In its emergency application for stay, the Trump administration requested that the high court place a temporary pause on a preliminary injunction issued last week by Biden-appointed District Judge Jia Cobb. That order sought to block the president from removing Cook from her position with the agency.

Trump announced he was firing Cook “on Aug. 25 over allegations broached by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta in 2021, before she joined the Federal Reserve,” according to a local Fox affiliate.

Cobbs’ ruling prompted the Trump administration to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking the higher court to pause the Biden appointee’s injunction. A three-judge panel for the appellate court declined (2-1) to do so on Monday.

Writing on behalf of the administration, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to place “an immediate administrative stay of [Cobbs’] preliminary injunction” while the merits of the case continue to proceed in the lower courts. He specifically argued that the government’s newest 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 Federal Reserve Act, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, broadly authorizes the President to dismiss members of the Board of Governors ‘for cause,’ without further restricting permissible types of cause,” Sauer wrote.

The solicitor general went on to argue that the administration is likely to succeed on the merits of the case “because Cook lacks a Fifth Amendment property interest in her continued service as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System” and that “the district court lacked authority to order reinstatement as an equitable remedy for the removal of an officer of the United States.” He further claimed that the administration “faces irreparable harm” if Cook is allowed to remain in her current position.

“That the Federal Reserve Board plays a uniquely important role in the American economy only heightens the government’s and the public’s interest in ensuring that an ethically compromised member does not continue wielding its vast powers,” Sauer wrote. “Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations.”

“This Court should stay the district court’s deeply flawed preliminary injunction and should grant an immediate administrative stay,” he added.

Trump v. Cook is the latest in a string of cases stemming from leftist-backed lawfare against the administration that have made their way to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket in recent months.