The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will hear oral arguments over President Trump’s effort to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook in January, enabling her to stay in her role for months as the justices punt a decision.
The terse order, which came without any noted dissents, tables Trump’s request to lift lower court decisions keeping Cook on the central bank’s board despite the president’s attempt to remove her.
The Supreme Court’s two-sentence order contains no explanation, as is typical for such decisions.
Emergency appeals are usually resolved in a matter of weeks without oral arguments.
Wednesday’s announcement marks the second time the justices have opted for the rare step of taking the bench to decide an emergency application filed by the second Trump administration. The court also did so in the battle over the president’s birthright citizenship restrictions, ultimately ruling 6-3 that judges couldn’t issue universal injunctions blocking the policy.
The announcement in Cook’s case comes days after the Supreme Court temporarily greenlighted Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) member Rebecca Slaughter over the dissents of the court’s three liberal justices, agreeing to review Trump’s claim he may fire independent agency leaders at will, and with that, the court’s own 90-year precedent regarding protections those agencies.
Supreme Court arguments in that case are set for December, but Cook’s case presents distinct issues and will now be heard weeks later.
With no ruling expected until after the arguments, Cook will be able to participate in at least two more meetings where interest rates may be cut — set for October and December — and possibly others. At September’s meeting, the Fed cut rates for the first time this year.
She may also participate in meetings about regulatory proposals and enforcement actions against banks the Fed oversees.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices in the government’s application that the case was yet another example of “improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority.”
Trump became the first president to try to fire a Fed governor when he terminated Cook last month, claiming she committed mortgage fraud by designated two properties as primary residences. The designation can result in lower mortgage rates.
The Federal Reserve Act requires Trump to have “cause” to fire a Fed governor but does not explicitly define it. Trump administration lawyers have argued that the courts have no power to second-guess the president’s assertion.
Cook’s lawyers deny any wrongdoing and argue the allegations don’t amount to a valid rationale since they occurred before Cook took office.
They urged the court to not to side with the administration, writing in court filings Thursday that granting the request would “eviscerate” the Fed’s independence from the White House. That insulation from presidential control is what has allowed America’s markets and economy to flourish, her lawyers argued.
“Granting that relief would dramatically alter the status quo, ignore centuries of history, and transform the Federal Reserve into a body subservient to the President’s will,” they said Thursday.
More than a dozen former Fed chairs, Treasury Department secretaries and top White House economists spanning both Democratic and Republican administrations had also asked the justices in a friend-of-the-court brief to let Cook stay on the central bank’s governing board.
Updated at 11:25 a.m. EDT