Politics
Supreme Court appears ready to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve board despite Trump efforts to fire her
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Supreme Court appeared poised to give President Donald Trump one of his biggest legal setbacks in office, offering strong support Wednesday for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook remaining in her leadership position — at least for now.
The justices debated in their packed courtroom whether Trump has broad unilateral executive authority to fire someone from the central bank, despite its special status as a stand-alone federal agency.
During nearly two hours of oral arguments, a majority seemed to agree the Fed’s unique public-private hybrid structure limited removal without clear “cause,” and that Trump did not meet his legal obligations when seeking Cook’s dismissal for alleged private mortgage fraud.
REPUBLICAN SENATOR VOWS TO BLOCK TRUMP FED NOMINEE OVER POWELL INVESTIGATION
Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook and attorney Abbe Lowell, arrive at the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. (Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo)
The case comes before the Supreme Court on an emergency basis — with the government seeking to dismiss Cook now, for as long as the courts decide the matter, a process that could last months.
The justices could decide the larger constitutional questions now or give the lower federal courts a chance for a full examination of the facts, with some guidance from the high court on the standards of “for cause” removal.
In arguments, most on the court seemed skeptical of Trump’s actions.
“That’s your position that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Very low bar for cause that the president alone determines. And that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
“Let’s talk about the real-world downstream effects of this. Because if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me just thinking big picture, what goes around, comes around,” added Kavanaugh, who has typically been an ardent defender of executive power. “All the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029 — if there’s a Democratic president or January 20th, 2033. And then, we’re really at, at will removal.”
Others on the bench raised questions of “public confidence” if the president could fire Fed governors without fully explaining or justifying the reasons.
“We have amicus briefs from economists who tell us that if Governor Cook is” fired, asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “that it can trigger a recession. How should we think about the public interest in a case like this?”
The Competing Arguments
Cook’s lawyer told the nine-member bench court the Federal Reserve System was created by Congress in 1913 as a wholly independent entity, to insulate it from political influence, and from any one president “stacking the deck” with their own nominees.
The first Black female Fed governor claims to be a political pawn in Trump’s very public efforts to dictate the board’s interest rate policies and by exploiting what she calls “manufactured charges” of wrongdoing.
GOP SENATOR SUGGESTS FED CHAIR POWELL RESIGN NOW TO DODGE POTENTIAL CRIMINAL INDICTMENT
President Donald Trump speaks with Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell (R) as he visits the Federal Reserve in Washington, D.C., on July 24, 2025.
With Cook in the audience as a show of support was Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, whom Trump has also sought to remove in a broader, ongoing feud with the agency over the pace of lowering benchmark interest rates to spur the domestic economy.
But the Trump Justice Department said he had executive authority to seek Cook’s removal, free from judicial review.
Independent Agency Review
The conservative court has allowed much of Trump’s challenged executive actions to be enforced at least temporarily — including upholding firings of members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission, despite federal laws protecting them against removal without good cause.
The justices last month heard arguments in a separate case, on Trump’s efforts to remove Democrat-appointed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which, like the Fed, is a congressionally-created independent, multi-member regulatory agency.
The 6-3 conservative majority in that petition appeared ready to rule for the president when it involves semi-autonomous agencies like the FTC.
But in the Federal Reserve dispute, the high court clearly indicated this institution was different.
In the Cook case, lower courts ruled she did not receive due process when the president tried to fire her.
The current posture of the case is whether Trump can remove Cook — at least temporarily — while the dispute continues to play out on the merits.
The “for cause” removal restriction’s constitutionality is not directly before the justices, but nevertheless played a key role in the oral argument session.
The Supreme Court could go ahead and settle the competing issues now — which seems unlikely — or leave it to the lower courts to continue hearing the appeal, with guidance on how to proceed.
Focus on the Fed
Though its leaders are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the seven-member board is considered an independent government agency, since its monetary policy decisions do not need presidential or legislative approval. But the agency does provide Congress with regular reports on its work.
It also does not receive any federal funding, and the terms of the members of the board of governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
Under law, the Federal Reserve’s leadership has a three-fold mandate: “maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates.”
The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are not part of the federal government, but set up like private corporations, and regionally located across the country.
In arguments, most justices agreed Cook deserved some chance to make her case that a dismissal would be improper.
SUPREME COURT PREPARES FOR MAJOR TEST OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER IN TRUMP EFFORTS TO FIRE FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR
The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)
“Why are you afraid of a hearing?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett, at one point.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked: “Let’s, just suppose with me, hypothetically, for the moment, that the court read the act to require notice and a hearing … What would that hearing look like?”
Gorsuch asked if the president could just call Cook into the White House Roosevelt Room. “So just a meeting across a conference table, finish with ‘you’re fired?’”
But Chief Justice John Roberts repeatedly said a hearing on the allegations would serve little use if her only defense is she made an “inadvertent error” on her mortgage application.
The public session also focused extensively on the standards of “cause” that would permit Cook’s dismissal. Several justices suggested the mortgage fraud claims against Cook were not serious enough to trigger emergency action requested by the government to remove her at least temporarily.
Existing statutory removal protections include the so-called “INM standard” — “inefficiency, neglect of malfeasance.”
“The question becomes, is it grossly negligent to make a mistake on a mortgage application?” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Samuel Alito also asked why the case was handled “in such a hurried manner,” suggesting concern the allegations against Cook have not been properly adjudicated, either by the courts or by the president himself.
In a statement after the hearing ended, Cook said her case is “about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.”
The Impact
The Federal Reserve Act (FRA) says the president can only remove members of the Fed board and FOMC “for cause.” The exact parameters of that standard were not spelled out in the original law, and never fully tested in the courts.
Cook — appointed for a 14-year term by former President Joe Biden in 2023 — will remain on the job at least until the court decides the current legal questions.
SUPREME COURT TEMPORARILY GREENLIGHTS FIRING OF BIDEN-APPOINTED FTC COMMISSIONER
Lisa DeNell Cook is sworn in during a Senate Banking nominations hearing on June 21, 2023, in Washington. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
No president has fired a sitting Fed governor in the law’s 112-year history.
She strongly denies accusations of falsely claiming two homes in Georgia and Michigan as her primary residence to secure better mortgage terms. She has not been charged with any crime.
Cook sued the administration last August in a bid to keep her job.
Just after the court arguments ended, Cook released a statement saying her case is “about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.”
The next Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is scheduled for January 27 and 28, with an expected interest rate decision. Both Powell and Cook are each set to participate.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Financial markets, private banks, businesses, and investors will be closely watching what the Supreme Court does in the Federal Reserve dispute, and a separate pending appeal over Trump’s sweeping reciprocal global tariffs.
A written ruling in that import tax case, which was argued by the justices in November, could come at any time.
The Fed case is Trump v. Cook (25a312). A decision there could come relatively quickly within weeks, or potentially as late as June or early July.
Democrats are struggling to respond to a major redistricting setback in Virginia, with some party leaders discussing an audacious and possibly far-fetched idea for trying to restore a congressional map voided by the court but showing little indication they have a clear plan.
During a private discussion on Saturday that included Democratic House members from Virginia and Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the minority leader, the lawmakers vented anger at their defeat at the Virginia Supreme Court, spoke about a collective determination to flip two or three Republican-held seats under the existing map and discussed a bank-shot proposal to redraw the congressional lines anyway, according to three people who participated in the call and two others who were briefed on it.
They did not land on a specific course forward, and Mr. Jeffries and the other members of Congress agreed to consult with their lawyers about the most prudent way to proceed, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private talk.
The conversation reflected the desperation and fury that have gripped the party after the state Supreme Court struck down a favorable map that had been ratified by voters. The most dramatic idea they discussed — which would involve an unusual gambit to replace the entire state Supreme Court, with a goal of reinstating their gerrymandered map — drew mixed reactions on the call, said the people, and it was not clear that it would even be viable, or palatable to Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democrats in the Virginia General Assembly.
After Democrats had fought Republicans to a rough draw last month in a nationwide gerrymandering war, a pair of recent court rulings quickly gave the G.O.P. the clear upper hand in the race to redraw maps ahead of the midterm elections. Facing stiff headwinds, including President Trump’s low approval ratings and high gas prices, Republicans are looking for every advantage they can find to defy the odds and hold on to their narrow majority.
Any plans to enact a new congressional map for this year’s midterm elections would require action in the next few days. In a court filing last month, Steven Koski, the commissioner of the Virginia Department of Elections, said any changes to the maps after Tuesday, May 12, “will significantly increase the risk” of his agency being unable to properly prepare for the state’s scheduled Aug. 4 primary election.
A spokesman for Mr. Jeffries declined to comment.
Scott Surovell, the majority leader of the Virginia Senate, declined to comment on Saturday evening. Don Scott, the speaker of the state House of Delegates, said in an interview that he had not spoken to Mr. Jeffries or members of the congressional delegation about the multistep proposal that came up in the discussion.
One key to the plan would be having Democrats in Richmond lower the mandatory retirement age for state Supreme Court justices, an idea that began circulating among state lawmakers and members of Congress after a column proposing a version of the idea was published on Friday night in The Downballot, a progressive newsletter.
Ms. Spanberger would have to sign off on any legislation that lowered the judicial retirement age. She has not been briefed on the proposal, the people involved in the discussion or briefed on it said. Her spokeswoman, Libby Wiet, declined to comment.
The first step in the process, as discussed on the delegation’s call, would be to invoke a January ruling by a circuit court judge in Tazewell County, Va., that said the 2026 constitutional amendment effort to redraw the maps was invalid because county officials did not post notice of it at courthouses and other public locations three months before a general election.
Democrats would aim to use that ruling to seek to invalidate the earlier constitutional amendment that created the state’s independent redistricting commission by arguing that courthouses across the state did not post notice of it at the time. That would give the legislature the authority to enact a map of its choosing.
Ensuring the plan proceeds would involve the General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, lowering the mandatory retirement age for Virginia’s Supreme Court from 75 to 54, the age of the youngest current justice, or less. Virginia judges are appointed by the General Assembly, where Democrats hold majorities in both chambers and could then fill vacancies on the court with sympathetic Democratic lawyers.
Mandatory retirement ages are in place for judges in 32 states and Washington, D.C., according to a 2015 law review article from the Duke University Law School. The article said the most common retirement age set by states is 70.
In states such as Arizona, Georgia and Utah, Republican lawmakers have expanded state Supreme Courts in order to make them more conservative. But the Virginia proposal, which would get rid of all the sitting judges, would go considerably further.
Former Representative James P. Moran, Democrat of Virginia, said a move to stack the Virginia Supreme Court would be “just a bridge too far” and could backfire on his party.
He said he understood that many Democrats felt that their party “needs to fight back and not just be victims of unparalleled aggression.” But, he added: “We do have to keep our credibility. We have to do things that pass the legitimacy test.”
Representative Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat who represents Loudoun County, Va., said in an interview that he supported doing whatever was necessary to preserve the map voters approved in last month’s referendum — including replacing the state’s Supreme Court justices.
“Everyone has got to have a strong stomach right now; this is a complete disaster waiting to happen if people are timid,” said Mr. Subramanyam, who was on the Saturday call. “We have Republican states ignoring their constitutions and interrupting early voting and ignoring their Supreme Courts all together. We know based on that, Republicans would explore every single option possible to move this forward.”
On Friday, Democratic legislative leaders in Virginia signaled that they planned to appeal the state Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. But some legal experts believe the state court ruling could be the final word on the matter, because it does not involve federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Jeffries has maintained throughout the redistricting battles over the last year that he would maintain all options for creating or preserving Democratic House districts and has said repeatedly that Democrats would employ “maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time.”
In an interview on Friday night, before his Saturday meeting with Virginia lawmakers, Mr. Jeffries said he was “exploring how to unravel this decision.”
“It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment, and it’s unprecedented in American history as far as we can tell that an actual election has been overturned by a handful of unelected judges,” Mr. Jeffries said. “We’re not going to step back, we will continue to fight back.”
Tim Balk contributed reporting.
Politics
Trump-backed Board of Peace, Israel ‘will take action’ if Hamas remains out of compliance: Netanyahu advisor
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Michael Eisenberg, a top advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, says Israel and the newly-created Board of Peace will “take action” against Hamas if it does not comply with the peace terms it agreed to.
Eisenberg made the comments during an interview with Fox News on Sunday. He said Hamas is currently out of compliance with a wider peace agreement and is refusing to give up its weapons to “demilitarize” Gaza.
“I think all the options are on the table since Hamas is noncompliant with the 20-point plan, and they haven’t delivered their weapons like they were supposed to. And so we’ll have to wait and see. But like I said, this is incredibly well thought out. Give President Trump a tremendous amount of credit and his team of people credit. They’ve literally thought through every stage of this from beginning to end,” Eisenberg said.
“And by the way, and as President Trump said, there’s an easy way and a hard way. Everyone prefers the easy way, which is Hamas. With the help of the mediators delivers the weapons, but if they don’t, there’s a hard way too.,” he added.
TRUMP CONVENES FIRST ‘BOARD OF PEACE’ MEETING AS GAZA REBUILD HINGES ON HAMAS DISARMAMENT
President Donald Trump (L) greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he arrives at the White House. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Eisenberg went on to say that Iran must also eventually give up control over Gaza under the 20-pont plan agreed to between the U.S., Israel and Hamas.
“Hamas is still there. But the 20-point plan says they cannot be there. They cannot be a part of government. They cannot bear arms. They have to become Swedish, basically, in order for them to stay in any role in Gaza. And so I suggest they do that sooner rather than later. And I think progress is slow. You can’t microwave a 30-year problem. It doesn’t work. Sociologists,” he said.
Eisenberg’s comments come amid multiple peace negotiations across the Middle East. Israel is hashing out an agreement to deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon and the U.S. is in talks with Iran.
WHAT ISRAEL WANTS FROM AN IRAN PEACE DEAL: NO ENRICHMENT, MISSILE LIMITS AND STRICT ENFORCEMENT
Netanyahu said last week that Israel and the United States remain in “full coordination” as negotiations continue.
“We share common objectives, and the most important objective is the removal of the enriched material from Iran, all the enriched material, and the dismantling of Iran’s enrichment capabilities,” Netanyahu said at the opening of a security cabinet meeting.
On the nuclear issue, former Israeli National Security Advisor Yaakov Amidror said Israel’s position remains uncompromising.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“Weaponized uranium must leave Iran,” Amidror said. “The Iranians must not be allowed to enrich uranium.”
Alongside the nuclear issue, Israeli analysts say Iran’s ballistic missile program has become equally central to Israel’s security concerns.
WASHINGTON — As Kamala Harris eyes a possible 2028 presidential bid, there is little outward enthusiasm among her biggest 2024 backers to fund a repeat performance, adding to uncertainty about the former vice president’s prospects in what is sure to be a crowded primary field.
The Times reached out to more than two dozen top donors to the biggest pro-Harris super PAC in 2024. Several of them said they do not plan to support her should she choose to run, or declined to talk about her. Others did not respond.
“I don’t think it’s a helpful narrative [for 2028] to start with the 2024 hangover,” said one fundraiser for Harris’ 2024 campaign, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “There is an enormous appetite for new blood — something fresh, something that really represents the future, not the past.”
That narrative is poised to present Harris’ biggest challenge if she decides to run — particularly if it jeopardizes her ability to pull in crucial funding. Though few in the party want to criticize Harris, few appear inclined to endorse her, and conversations about her prospects often come down to one thing: Democrats’ anxiety about winning.
“She’s run, she’s lost, so the question’s going to be, is there somebody that gives Democratic voters more of a sense that they could win?” said Dick Harpootlian, a longtime South Carolina Democratic strategist. “That’s what all of us are looking for. We want to win in ‘28.”
The chatter among party elites appears at odds with recent polling in Harris’ favor, including in April’s Harvard Center for American Political Studies/Harris Poll, which showed Harris leading the Democratic field with support from 50% of Democrats.
The former vice president has also been met with enthusiasm from audiences in a series of recent speaking stops — including when she told a friendly crowd at a New York conference in April that she “might” run for president.
Harris remains undecided about whether to mount a run, according to a person familiar with her thinking, who said Friday she has been focused on boosting Democrats ahead of the midterm elections, meeting voters and delivering messages about the economy and affordability.
If she were to run, Harris would expect a crowded primary field to split donors and would be aware of the need to overcome the perception of skeptics, this person said — but noted that 2028 would afford a very different dynamic than the circumstances under which she took the nomination in 2024.
“There’s a bit of a ‘doth protest too much’ quality to some of these complaints about the idea of her running,” said the person close to her. “It may be a backhanded way of acknowledging that she’d be quite formidable if she decided to get in.”
Speculation about whether Harris would run again — and whether she should — has swirled since her truncated 2024 campaign ended in defeat to Donald Trump. Harris’ decision not to run for California governor in a wide-open race was broadly viewed as signaling presidential ambitions, and she reentered the public eye with the publication of a book about the 2024 campaign and an associated speaking tour.
Last month, Harris gave her strongest signal yet that she could seek the party’s nomination again, telling the Rev. Al Sharpton at a gathering of his civil rights organization in New York that she was “thinking about it.”
“I know what the job is and I know what it requires,” Harris said at the time.
Harris’ 2024 loss to Trump and failure to capture any battleground states — after entering the race late following President Biden’s exit — was bruising for Democrats. The defeat is lingering longer for some top donors than it did after Hillary Clinton’s loss to Trump in 2016, making them extra wary, said one Democratic political consultant.
“Especially in the donor class, everyone feels burnt,” he said. “People just want to turn the page.”
The Times contacted top donors to Future Forward, the Democratic super PAC that spent the most to back Harris in the 2024 election. All the donors contacted gave at least $1 million and some acted as bundlers for the campaign, soliciting big checks from other donors in addition to their own contributions.
Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, who gave $1 million to Future Forward in 2024, said he hoped to support a different Californian.
“Gavin is the candidate who can motivate both the left and the center,” Hastings told The Times, referring to Gov. Gavin Newsom.
A bundler for both Harris and Biden said it comes down to who can give Democrats the best chance to succeed.
“I think it is too early to pick a favorite in the 2028 race, but Kamala Harris will not be my candidate,” this person said. “I don’t think she would appeal to a swing voter, and we need swing voters to win.”
Others, including a few party leaders, deflected questions by citing a focus on this year’s midterm elections. Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who last year praised Newsom’s presidential prospects during a visit by the governor, said Tuesday that Democrats should be zeroed in on 2026.
“I’m not thinking about 2028, and if she were to call me I wouldn’t talk to her about it,” Clyburn told The Times when asked about Harris’ chances.
Enthusiasm for Harris and skepticism about her viability in 2028 aren’t mutually exclusive, said the former Harris fundraiser.
“A lot of people love her and also don’t think that she is the answer for 2028,” the fundraiser said.
The attitudes of the donor class and political elite may be at odds with those of regular Americans, particularly Black and working-class voters, the Democratic political consultant said. Few of the possible candidates have the potential to excite Black voters the way Harris does, he said.
If a candidate, whether Harris or someone else, makes a successful case that they can win, Black voters will be “strategic and optimistic enough” to rally around whoever it is, said Keneshia Grant, a Howard University political scientist.
But, she said, “I don’t think that they are going to take well to work by elites or the donor class to sideline Harris if there is no clear, reasonable, exciting, Obama-level, yes-we-can candidate instead of her.”
Harris speaks the Public Counsel Awards Dinner on April 29 in Beverly Hills.
(Frazer Harrison / Getty Images)
In recent weeks, Harris has spoken at a fundraiser in South Carolina, a party luncheon in Michigan and a dinner in Arkansas. On Thursday, she was in Nevada to rally Democrats ahead of the midterm primary.
She also joined other likely 2028 contenders at the Colorado Speaker Series in Denver and Sharpton’s conference, accepted an award from the nonprofit Public Counsel at a Los Angeles gala and addressed the National Women’s Law Center gala in Washington to a warm reception, as did Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
“She was inspiring, she was hopeful, she pushed back on Trump,” said Jay Parmley, head of the Democratic Party in South Carolina, where Harris spoke at a party-hosted fundraiser in Greenville on April 15.
South Carolina, a key primary state, could help unlock Harris’ path to the nomination. If Black voters there boosted her to a win, she could build early momentum.
But Parmley said he believed she would have to “get over” the hurdle of convincing voters that she can beat the GOP.
“I don’t think it’s a given she wins here without work,” Parmley said. “She’s going to have to really visit with voters and work just like everybody else.”
Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.
-
Minnesota1 minute agoFourstar LB Tate Wallace finds perfect fit and commits to Minnesota
-
Mississippi7 minutes agoMississippi high school addresses social media post, says it won’t tolerate racism or harassment
-
Missouri13 minutes agoMissouri Highway Patrol: 3 killed in fiery head-on crash on Highway 71
-
Montana19 minutes agoMontana Vista residents meet with grid developer in heated meeting
-
Nebraska25 minutes agoAmerican passengers from hantavirus-hit cruise ship to stop at Nebraska facility before heading home. Here’s what we know | CNN
-
Nevada31 minutes agoPalo Verde softball star follows mother’s footsteps to forge new path
-
New Hampshire37 minutes agoPlymouth’s tap water beats Concord at state festival – Concord Monitor
-
New Jersey43 minutes agoNew Jersey mom hits jackpot at casino slots in Atlantic City