1 day ago
10
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
The justices were alert to the central bank’s crucial role and wary of issuing a broad ruling based on rushed briefing and incomplete information.
By Adam Liptak and Colby Smith
Adam Liptak covers the law and the courts. Colby Smith covers the Federal Reserve.
Jan. 21, 2026, 3:08 p.m. ET
After two hours of lively arguments on Wednesday, the Supreme Court seemed likely to rule narrowly and provisionally in favor of Lisa D. Cook, the Federal Reserve governor whom President Trump has sought to fire based on an accusation of mortgage fraud.
Some justices voiced reluctance to imperil the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. Others said the alleged fraud, which Ms. Cook has denied, did not appear grave enough to satisfy the law governing the Fed, which allows the president to remove officials only “for cause.” Ms. Cook has not been charged with a crime.
The court is likely to return the case to the lower courts for further proceedings, including a fuller exploration of the facts.
A separate question for the justices is whether Ms. Cook should keep her job in the meantime. On that, the majority seems to be leaning toward leaving her in place while the case proceeds.
Here are four key takeaways from the arguments.
Due Process Denied?
Several justices questioned whether Mr. Trump’s notice that he intended to fire Ms. Cook in a social media post satisfied due process. D. John Sauer, the solicitor general, said she was not entitled to any particular procedures before her dismissal.
He said that she had, in any event, received notice of the president’s intention via the social media and then had an opportunity to tell her side of the story. A letter formally firing her landed five days after the post.
