Shawn Fleetwood of the Federalist analyzes the U.S. Supreme Court’s commentary about a case involving President Donald Trump’s executive power.
The U.S. Supreme Court sent mixed signals on Wednesday about how it will rule on President Trump’s effort to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Known as Trump v. Cook, the case focuses on Trump’s August firing of Cook from the Fed over allegations that the Democrat appointee committed mortgage fraud prior to joining the board. As The Federalist reported, a Biden-appointed district judge subsequently granted a request by Cook to block her termination, leading the Trump administration to file an application asking SCOTUS to temporarily pause the preliminary injunction while litigation continued.
The high court deferred on ruling on the application in October until it could hear oral arguments in the case.
While arguing before the bench on Wednesday, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer contended that Trump possesses the lawful authority to fire Cook and that his doing so over her alleged mortgage fraud satisfies the federal law in question’s “for cause” removal provision. Characterizing her alleged conduct as deceitful and “at best, grossly negligent,” Sauer also pushed back against Cook’s claims that the statute “grants her notice and a hearing” —arguments he said, “contradict[] this court’s cases requiring very clear and explicit language to restrict the president’s removal power.”
Sauer’s first challenge came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who pressed the solicitor general on the level of discretion afforded to presidents on this specific subject and whether he believes courts may review a president’s “determination of cause” for removal at the Fed. It’s a point the chief justice circled back to later on in the hearing, in which he asked Sauer, “If you’re correct that courts do not have the authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there’s cause or not?”
