A rare filing from prominent economic figures could influence the Supreme Court’s decision regarding President Trump’s authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors.
A significant legal battle is unfolding as the Supreme Court deliberates on whether President Donald Trump has the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors. This case has garnered attention due to an extraordinary amicus brief submitted by a coalition of influential figures in U.S. economic policy.
On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court engaged in two hours of oral arguments concerning Cook’s position. The amicus brief, which is a submission from parties not directly involved in the case, aims to provide the court with information and arguments that could influence its decision.
The brief is signed by every living former chair of the Federal Reserve, including Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Janet Yellen, along with six former Treasury secretaries who served under both Democratic and Republican presidents. This group also includes seven former White House economic advisers, representing nearly five decades of U.S. economic policymaking.
Such a collective intervention is rare, as former Fed chairs and Treasury secretaries typically avoid engaging in public legal disputes. In their 32-page brief, the signatories argue that allowing the Trump administration to remove a sitting Fed board member would “erode public confidence in the Fed’s independence and threaten the long-term stability of the economy.”
The brief contends that expanding presidential power over Federal Reserve board membership is “neither necessary nor appropriate” and would ultimately be counterproductive. The authors warn that such a move could undermine the central bank’s independence, leading to higher inflation and economic instability.
They assert that the ramifications of this dispute are already observable. “Sectors that pay close attention to the Federal Reserve—including the financial markets, the public, employers, and lenders—are watching the current dispute over the President’s removal of Governor Cook to judge how credible the Fed will be going forward,” the brief states.
However, John Sauer, the solicitor general, criticized the amici filing for not addressing the “legal issues at the heart of this case.” He noted that most of Cook’s supporters emphasized policy arguments, highlighting the perceived benefits of the Federal Reserve Board’s independence in setting monetary policy. Sauer argued that “policy preferences are not the law, and these particular preferences lack any logical limit.”
The outcome of Cook’s case could also have implications for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s future at the institution. In a notable departure from his usual low-profile approach, Powell attended the oral arguments at the Supreme Court. His presence comes amid a criminal investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., related to his congressional testimony regarding a multi-billion dollar renovation of the Fed’s headquarters. Powell has described the investigation as “unprecedented,” suggesting it reflects an effort by the Trump administration to exert legal pressure on the central bank regarding policy decisions.
Lisa Cook’s appointment to the Federal Reserve was historic, and now she finds herself at the center of a pivotal moment as President Trump seeks to remove her—a move that would mark an unprecedented action in the Fed’s 112-year history. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on Cook’s case by the summer, a decision that could have lasting implications for the independence of the Federal Reserve and the future of U.S. monetary policy.
As this case unfolds, the perspectives of economic leaders and the legal arguments presented will play a crucial role in shaping the court’s decision, which may redefine the boundaries of presidential authority over the Federal Reserve.
According to Fox News, the implications of this case extend beyond Cook herself, potentially affecting the overall credibility and independence of the Federal Reserve in the eyes of the public and financial markets.