As noted in the filing, “As her removal notice observed, before taking office, Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence. Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky. When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter” renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates “the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question[her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” App., infra, 29a. To this day, Cook has never attempted to reconcile these representations.” (READ MORE)

“The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” Sauer wrote. “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination … is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”

“The President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Sauer wrote.

Cook maintains she dindunuffin.