On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court denied an application to stay a district court's order that had preliminarily enjoined President Trump's purported firing of Federal Reserve System Governor Lisa Cook. This 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the opinion, means Cook will remain in her role, at least for now, pending the conclusion of litigation over her attempted removal. Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson wrote concurring opinions, while Justices Thomas, Alito (joined by Gorsuch), and Barrett dissented.
The ruling signifies a setback for President Trump's efforts to exert greater control over independent federal agencies, which he and his allies consider an “extraconstitutional fourth branch” of government. The independence of agencies like the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Federal Election Commission is designed to insulate them from political influence, ensuring their decisions prioritize the public interest in areas such as inflation, employment, market integrity, and election safeguarding.
This case, Trump v. Cook (Independent Agencies), involved President Trump's attempt to fire Cook based on allegations related to discrepancies in a mortgage application, which he claimed falsely stated both a Michigan and Georgia property would serve as her principal residence. However, Trump had not provided substantial evidence for these claims, nor afforded Cook a hearing to address them. Cook's lawyer argued any discrepancies were inadvertent, and the move was seen as an attempt to bypass the "for cause" protection granted to Fed governors.
The Supreme Court's decision to deny the stay, particularly after an earlier indication in Trump v. Wilcox (2025) recognizing the Federal Reserve as a "uniquely structured, quasi-private entity," reinforces the view that the president cannot easily remove Fed leaders. This outcome protects the Federal Reserve's ability to operate without direct presidential interference, especially concerning critical economic decisions like setting interest rates, which could be politically motivated in an election year. The ruling also suggests that attempts by the administration to find pretexts for firing independent regulators may face judicial scrutiny.
