The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling shortly—possibly by Monday evening or Tuesday—on a pivotal legal challenge concerning whether former President Donald Trump can unilaterally remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The outcome could significantly reshape the central bank’s independence and have far-reaching consequences for financial markets and national economic stability.
The Federal Reserve operates as an independent agency, with Board of Governors appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve 14-year terms. By law, these officials can only be dismissed “for cause,” a safeguard designed to insulate monetary policy from political pressure.
However, a faction within the Court’s conservative majority adheres to the “unitary executive” theory, which asserts that all executive authority resides solely with the president, thereby challenging congressional efforts to limit presidential control over agency heads. Over the past two decades, this judicial philosophy has gradually expanded presidential removal power, accelerating during Trump’s second term.
In a May 2025 decision in Trump v. Wilcox, the Court hinted at hesitation in extending this doctrine to the Fed, suggesting the institution may be exempt due to its unique quasi-private structure and historical lineage tracing back to the First and Second Banks of the United States. Legal scholars, including Republican-appointed judges, have questioned the coherence of this distinction, but the precedent remains binding.
The current case, Cook v. Trump, centers on Trump’s attempt to dismiss Lisa Cook, a governor appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. Trump claimed she committed mortgage fraud by listing two properties as primary residences, asserting this justified removal “for cause.” However, Reuters later reported that one property was correctly declared as a vacation home, undermining the basis of the accusation.
Trump’s legal team contends that even a factually unsupported determination by the president cannot be reviewed by courts, effectively rendering the “for cause” standard meaningless. Under this interpretation, any arbitrary justification—even historically implausible ones—could suffice to remove Fed officials.
If the Court overturns or narrows the Wilcox precedent, it would not only jeopardize the Fed’s autonomy but also signal a dramatic shift in judicial alignment with political power. Historical precedent warns of the risks: in 1972, President Richard Nixon pressured Fed Chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates ahead of his re-election, contributing to prolonged stagflation in the 1970s.
Trump has requested an expedited ruling, seeking authority to remove Fed governors before a key policy meeting beginning Tuesday. As of now, the case is before a federal appeals court, which Trump urged to rule by September 15, 2025. If no decision is issued, he is expected to petition the Supreme Court directly.
The coming days will reveal whether the Court’s conservative bloc intends to uphold institutional independence or further erode checks on executive authority.
— news from vox.com
— News Original —
A long-simmering showdown over whether President Donald Trump may seize control over the Federal Reserve appears to be entering its endgame. It is highly likely that the Supreme Court will weigh in on this dispute either Monday evening or Tuesday. n nIf the Court does side with Trump, that would be one of the most consequential economic policy decisions in the federal judiciary’s history. And it could potentially have disastrous consequences both for investors and for the US economy broadly. n nSCOTUS, Explained n nGet the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. n nEmail (required) n nBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. n nThe Fed is one of several federal agencies that are labeled as “independent” from the president. Though the president chooses who will serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors, these governors must be confirmed by the Senate, and they serve 14-year terms. By law, the president may only remove a member of the Fed’s board “for cause,” unlike most agency leaders who serve at the pleasure of the president. n nThe Supreme Court’s Republican majority, however, subscribes to a theory known as the “unitary executive,” which claims that it is unconstitutional for Congress to shield agency leaders from presidential control. If you care about the details of this theory, I’ve written more explainers on it than I can count, but the gist of it is that the Constitution places all “executive” power in the hands of the president. So any agency leader who wields authority that the Court deems to be “executive” in nature must be fireable at will by the president. n nFor most of the past two decades, the Republican justices have slowly expanded the president’s power to fire officials under this theory. And they kicked this process into overdrive shortly after Trump took office for his second term. But, in a May decision, the Court did signal that it was spooked about giving Trump the authority to fire members of the Federal Reserve. n nAlthough the Court’s May decision in Trump v. Wilcox was cryptic, it’s not hard to suss out why some of the justices feel torn between their loyalty to both Trump and the unitary executive theory on the one hand, and a desire to preserve Fed independence on the other. n nThe Fed essentially has the power to inject cocaine into the US economy. When the Fed lowers interest rates, it makes it easier for businesses to borrow money that they can use to begin new projects and hire new workers. But it also risks spiking inflation rates. Thus, if the president controls the Fed, he can engineer a short-term, politically advantageous boost to the economy — but at the cost of much greater economic turmoil down the road. n nNor is this concern merely hypothetical. In advance of his reelection bid in 1972, President Richard Nixon successfully pressured Fed chair Arthur Burns to lower interest rates. The economy boomed that year as a result, and Nixon won in an historic landslide. But Burns’s capitulation is often blamed for years of “stagflation,” slow economic growth and high inflation, during the 1970s. n nIn any event, a lawsuit known as Cook v. Trump is now barreling toward the Supreme Court, and is likely to land on the justices’ doorstep as soon as Monday night. Trump has asked the courts to weigh in on this case on an exceedingly expedited basis, in the hopes that he can gain the power to fire Federal Reserve governors in advance of an important Fed meeting that begins Tuesday. n nAs of this writing, Cook is pending before a federal appeals court. Trump asked that court to issue its decision “by the close of business on Monday, September 15, 2025.” If the appeals court does not comply, however, Trump will almost certainly attempt to bypass it and seek review from the Supreme Court in advance of the Tuesday Fed meeting. n nSo we are likely to find out very soon if the Court’s Republican majority intends to place the Fed under Trump’s control. n nWhat is Cook v. Trump about? n nLast month, Trump attempted to fire Lisa Cook, a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors who was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. n nTrump claims he fired her because she allegedly committed mortgage fraud by claiming two separate properties as her principal residence — and thus he is firing her “for cause” — but this claim is an obvious pretext. Trump has raised similar allegations against several of his political foes, including Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James. And, in any event, the allegation against Cook was later revealed to be false. n nLast week, Reuters reported that Cook declared one of the two properties as a “vacation home,” so the lender that helped her purchase that property was aware it was not her principal residence. n nNevertheless, Trump claims that he is allowed to fire Cook anyway. In briefs filed in a federal appeals court, Trump’s lawyers argue that the president’s false determination that Cook committed mortgage fraud “is not subject to judicial second-guessing,” and thus no court can prevent Trump from firing her based even on a transparently made-up pretext. n nUnder Trump’s legal theory, he could have justified firing Cook “for cause” by accusing her of being responsible for the 1881 assassination of President James Garfield, or for causing the fall of Rome. Trump is asking the Court to neutralize the law protecting Fed governors from political firings in its entirety. n nWhat stands in Trump’s way is the Court’s decision last May in Wilcox, which indicated that the Fed is exempt from the unitary executive theory, and that Trump may not fire its leaders at will. n nAdmittedly, the opinion in Wilcox was gobbledygook. It claimed that the Fed is special because it “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States” — whatever that means. Numerous legal experts, including the Republican chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, have questioned whether there is actually a principled way to distinguish the Fed from other independent agencies. n nUltimately, however, the question of whether the Court’s decision in Wilcox rests on a principled distinction is academic. This Court frequently hands down bizarre or incomprehensible decisions, and those decisions are no less binding than cases that rest on sound legal reasoning. n nThe important thing is that, just four months ago, this Court handed down a decision indicating that Trump cannot fire members of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. If the Republican justices reverse course after such a recent decision, either by overruling Wilcox explicitly or by defining the term “for cause” so narrowly that it becomes meaningless, that wouldn’t just have stunning implications for the US economy. n nIt would also be an unusually loud signal that this Court has decided to become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization.