# Trump v. Cook ***Trump v. Cook***, 609 U.S. ___ (decided **June 29, 2026**), is the Supreme Court case in which President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor [[Lisa Cook]] failed, 5–4 — the same day *[[Trump v. Slaughter]]* overruled *[[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]]* for every other independent agency. The two decisions together define the second term's settlement on removal: the President may fire the commissioners of the FTC, the NLRB, the FCC and the rest at will, and the [[Federal Reserve]] is the one exception, held by a single vote. ## The firing On August 15, 2025, Federal Housing Finance Agency director [[Bill Pulte]] accused Cook — a Biden appointee confirmed in May 2022, and a consistent vote with Chair [[Jerome Powell]] against cutting rates — of claiming two primary residences on 2021 mortgage documents, and referred her to the Justice Department; he had made the same accusation against [[Letitia James]] and Adam Schiff. Trump demanded her resignation on August 20 and announced on **August 25, 2025** that he had removed her "for cause," the first attempted firing of a governor in the Fed's 112 years. Reuters, the *Post* and the *Financial Times* later found that Cook had declared the Atlanta property a vacation home on the loan estimate and a second home on her security-clearance form, and had never claimed a homestead exemption there. ## The courts Cook sued on August 28. Judge [[Jia Cobb]] (D.D.C.) enjoined the removal on September 9, 2025, holding that "for cause" does not reach conduct before the officer took office; the D.C. Circuit refused a stay 2–1 on September 15, before the FOMC meeting; the Supreme Court declined the government's emergency application on October 1 and set argument for **January 21, 2026** — 593 economists and every living former Fed chair and Treasury secretary from Greenspan and Rubin to Yellen and Bernanke had filed against the President. Paul Clement argued for Cook; [[D. John Sauer]] for the government. The Court, per **Chief Justice Roberts** (joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh and Jackson), held that the Federal Reserve Act's fixed term and "for cause" clause, read against the Fed's historic independence, entitle a governor to notice and some opportunity to respond before removal — which Cook never received. Kavanaugh and Jackson concurred separately. **Thomas**, **Alito** (joined by Gorsuch) and **Barrett** each dissented; Barrett had pressed at argument on the absence of any hearing but would not have reached the result. Cook remains in her seat while the case continues below. ## Why it matters *Slaughter* answered the theoretical question in the President's favor and *Cook* answered the practical one against him: the Fed is different, and the difference is procedural before it is structural. The independence of American monetary policy now rests on five votes at the Court and on the arithmetic of the [[Federal Open Market Committee]], where the regional bank presidents the President does not appoint hold five of twelve seats — see [[Central Bank Independence]] and the [[Federal Reserve System Tree]]. The pretext matters too: a mortgage-fraud referral from a political appointee, aimed at three of the President's adversaries in turn, was the "cause." Compare [[Removal Power]] for the doctrine and [[Unitary Executive Theory]] for the ambition. ## See Also - [[Lisa Cook]] · [[Jerome Powell]] · [[Kevin Warsh]] · [[Federal Reserve]] · [[Federal Open Market Committee]] - [[Trump v. Slaughter]] · [[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]] · [[Removal Power]] · [[Central Bank Independence]] - [[Bill Pulte]] · [[Jia Cobb]] · [[D. John Sauer]] · [[Letitia James]]