Advertisement
Jan. 21, 2026Updated 12:11 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court repeatedly questioned a lawyer for the Trump administration about whether the president exceeded his authority in firing a member of the Federal Reserve board, in a case with potentially enormous consequences for the economy.
During the oral arguments, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pressed Mr. Trump’s representative, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, over the idea that a victory for Mr. Trump could allow future administrations to try to dismiss Fed officials “at will.” The president wants to fire a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, as part of his effort to install loyalists on its board.
In the first hour of the argument, the justices sounded wary of siding with the president’s view that h…
Advertisement
Jan. 21, 2026Updated 12:11 p.m. ET
The Supreme Court repeatedly questioned a lawyer for the Trump administration about whether the president exceeded his authority in firing a member of the Federal Reserve board, in a case with potentially enormous consequences for the economy.
During the oral arguments, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh pressed Mr. Trump’s representative, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, over the idea that a victory for Mr. Trump could allow future administrations to try to dismiss Fed officials “at will.” The president wants to fire a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, as part of his effort to install loyalists on its board.
In the first hour of the argument, the justices sounded wary of siding with the president’s view that he should have full discretion to decide what actions are grounds for removal. Ms. Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, questioned the basis for her firing by Mr. Trump and the manner in which it took place.
The Federal Reserve sets monetary policy and interest rates, among other duties, and when Congress established it, lawmakers worked to insulate it from political influence. Its leaders have 14-year terms and may be removed only “for cause.” But the president has increasingly attacked the Fed, pressuring it to lower interest rates as well as trying to push out its chair and fire Ms. Cook.
The justices have signaled that the Fed may be uniquely protected from presidential meddling, even as the court’s conservative majority has allowed Mr. Trump to fire leaders of other independent agencies.
Here’s what else to know:
Consequences: Ms. Cook’s future at the Fed is not the only thing at stake. If the Supreme Court sides with Mr. Trump, legal experts warn that the independence of the central bank could be in jeopardy. That could risk undermining the central bank’s ability to make economically necessary, but politically painful, policy decisions. Read more ›
Accusations: Mr. Trump said he had cause to fire the governor, Ms. Cook, over an accusation of mortgage fraud from before she joined the board. Ms. Cook, who was not charged or convicted of a crime, disputes the allegation. Her legal team asserts that the accusation was a “pretext” for policy disagreements. Read more ›
Presidential power: Mr. Trump has made clear he wants the chance to stock the nation’s central bank with political loyalists. In court, the administration has strenuously steered clear of this rhetoric. Outside of court, though, the president has boasted about the changes he hopes to bring to the Fed. Read more ›
Taking sides: Every living former Fed chair, six former Treasury secretaries and many other former officials appointed by presidents of both parties urged the Supreme Court to stop Mr. Trump’s efforts to fire Ms. Cook, saying it would “threaten the long-term stability of our economy.” Read more ›
Ann Marimow covers the Supreme Court for The Times from Washington.
Advertisement