On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined (for now) to stop a lower court blockade attempting to prevent President Trump from firing a Democrat member of the Federal Reserve Board.
In its one-page order, the high court “deferred” ruling on an emergency application for stay filed last month by the Trump administration until the case could be argued before the court early next year. The motion asked the justices to temporarily pause a preliminary injunction issued by a Biden-appointed district judge that blocked Trump from firing Fed Gov. Lisa Cook, also a Biden appointee.
The Supreme Court said it will defer on issuing a verdict on the matter “pending oral argument” in the case, which it announced has been scheduled for January 2026. The high court further directed the court clerk to “to establish a briefing schedule for amici curiae and any supplemental briefs responding to amici.”
Cook will remain in her position until SCOTUS issues a judgment in the case.
According to a local Fox affiliate, Trump announced he was firing Cook “on Aug. 25 over allegations broached by one of his appointees that she committed mortgage fraud related to two properties she purchased in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and Atlanta in 2021, before she joined the Federal Reserve.”
The move prompted Cook to sue over her firing in federal court, leading to the aforementioned preliminary injunction issued by District Judge Jia Cobb. The Trump administration quickly appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, of which a three-judge panel rejected (2-1) its request to pause the injunction.
In its emergency application for stay presented to the Supreme Court, the federal government requested the justices pause Cobbs’ injunction and argued that its latest filing “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority–here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause.”
“The Federal Reserve Act, ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, broadly authorizes the President to dismiss members of the Board of Governors ‘for cause,’ without further restricting permissible types of cause,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote. “This Court should stay the district court’s deeply flawed preliminary injunction and should grant an immediate administrative stay.”
Thus far, the case is the second in which the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in this term involving the president’s authority to dismiss leading officials of certain executive agencies.
Last week, the high court agreed to take up and hold arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, which centers around Trump’s firing of a Democrat member of the Federal Trade Commission. The case could ultimately lead to the overturning of the precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which curtailed the president’s oversight of so-called “independent agencies” and helped birth what is known as the “administrative state.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood