Post by : Badri Ariffin

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on January 21 in a high-profile case that could redefine presidential authority over the Federal Reserve. The case centers on President Donald Trump’s move to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, who he accused of mortgage fraud related to her personal residences.

Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Federal Reserve Board, has strongly denied any wrongdoing. She filed a lawsuit seeking to block her removal, arguing that the allegations are unrelated to her performance at the Fed.

A federal district court in Washington, D.C., initially sided with Cook, ruling that she could not be removed while her lawsuit was pending. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that decision, prompting Trump to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

In her ruling, District Court Judge Jia Cobb emphasized that under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed “for cause” related to their behavior in office. Since the allegations against Cook predate her Fed service, the court found that they did not meet this standard.

Representing the Trump administration, Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the president should be able to remove Cook even while litigation is ongoing. Sauer contends that Cook does not have a legal property interest in her role as Fed Governor, and that the president’s discretion over removal “for cause” should remain largely unreviewable.

The case has drawn attention not only because of Cook’s historic position but also because it touches on the broader balance of power between the executive branch and the Federal Reserve. Observers note that the Supreme Court’s decision could set a precedent on the limits of presidential authority over independent federal institutions.

#Global News #Global Updates