WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in Trump v. Cook, a case that could reshape the balance of power between the presidency and independent federal agencies, with major implications for the Federal Reserve and the broader economy, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
At issue is President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, before the end of her fixed term. Cook challenged the removal in federal court, arguing that the president violated statutory protections that allow Fed governors to be removed only “for cause” and only after notice and a hearing, the Brennan Center reported.
A federal district judge in Washington agreed, temporarily blocking the removal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit allowed that ruling to stand.
The Trump administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene. The court scheduled oral arguments for January 2026, placing the dispute at the center of a broader debate over presidential authority.
Legal scholars say the case fits into a growing pattern of consolidation of executive power. “SCOTUS isn’t really weighing in on one case,” wrote Thomas Wolf, director of democracy initiatives at the Brennan Center, in a public thread this week. “It’s weighing in on a whole pattern of presidential conduct and a whole system of the government.”
The Federal Reserve is designed to operate independently from political pressure, with governors serving staggered 14-year terms. That structure traces back to New Deal-era reforms intended to prevent presidents from manipulating monetary policy for short-term political gain, according to the Brennan Center.
Courts have long upheld limits on presidential removal power for certain independent agencies, most notably in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), which allowed Congress to protect regulators from being fired at the president’s discretion.
More recently, however, the Supreme Court has moved in the opposite direction. In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) and Collins v. Yellen (2021), the court ruled that restrictions on removing agency heads violated the Constitution’s separation of powers. Those decisions strengthened what conservatives call the “unitary executive theory,” the idea that the president must have direct control over all executive officers.
Trump’s lawyers argue that Cook can be removed “for cause” based on alleged misconduct and that courts lack authority to second-guess the president’s determination.
Jane Manners, a legal historian and member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution, filed an amicus brief challenging that claim. The brief argues that removal statutes historically required notice, a hearing and proof of misconduct occurring during an official’s term, none of which, she says, occurred in Cook’s case.
Beyond legal doctrine, economists and former officials warn that weakening the Fed’s independence could destabilize financial markets. Central bank autonomy is widely viewed as a cornerstone of modern economic governance.
Wolf argues that the Cook case is part of a broader campaign to pressure regulators. Trump has repeatedly criticized the Fed for not lowering interest rates more aggressively and has publicly attacked Fed Chair Jerome Powell. The administration has also sought to remove leaders at other independent agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, cases that are still moving through lower courts.
“The push to remove Cook is a test case,” Wolf wrote, describing what he called a “mob-boss approach to governance” aimed at cornering officials into compliance.
Even if the court ultimately allows Cook to remain, a narrow ruling could still erode protections for other agencies. The court has suggested the Fed may be “historically unique,” a carve-out that would leave other regulators vulnerable, Wolf wrote.
The outcome of Trump v. Cook could therefore reach far beyond one Fed governor. At stake is whether presidents can reshape independent agencies according to political will, or whether Congress and the courts can continue to shield regulators tasked with making decisions insulated from partisan pressure.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories: Breaking News National Issues Tags: Brennan Center for Justice Federal Reserve independent agencies President Donald Trump presidential power Supreme Court Trump Administration U.S. Supreme Court unitary executive theory