The Supreme Court said Wednesday that Lisa Cook, the Federal Reserve board member whom Donald Trump is trying to fire, can remain on the job at least into early next year, when the court will hear oral argument on the case.

Mr. Trump had asked the justices to let him carry out the firing while the case develops, but the court “deferred” that request “pending oral argument in January 2026.”

That’s a rare setback for Mr. Trump, who has generally been on a winning streak with these kinds of requests before the high court.

Indeed, the justices have allowed him to carry out firings of members of other so-called independent agencies even as those cases are still being argued.

But the Federal Reserve case presents different issues.

In the other cases, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Trade Commission and the Merit Systems Protection Board, Mr. Trump booted members over policy differences. He said each of those agencies wields significant executive power and he must have the ability to have his own people — or at the very least to not have opponents — on those boards.

In the case of Ms. Cook, however, Mr. Trump said he was firing her for good cause. He cited questions over a home mortgage application.

Lower courts have rejected that as a valid for-cause reason.

“The best reading of the ‘for cause’ provision is that the basis for removal of a member of the Board of Governors are limited to grounds concerning a governor’s behavior in office and whether they have been faithfully and effectively executing their statutory duties,” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, ruled in a preliminary injunction.

The circuit court of appeals in Washington declined to block her ruling.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer then asked the justices to weigh in.

“The question whether Cook’s removal is lawful warrants this court’s review, given the significance of the removal power to the president’s ability to supervise the executive branch and the importance of the Federal Reserve Board as a federal agency,” he said.

Ms. Cook, in her own brief to the high court, said booting her now would upend things.

“That disruption would subvert the Federal Reserve’s historical independence and disrupt the American economy,” Mr. Cook’s lawyers argued.

• Stephen Dinan can be reached at sdinan@washingtontimes.com.