The US Supreme Court has adopted a cautious and skeptical stance regarding President Donald Trump’s attempt to remove Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook from her post.
In today’s hearing, some judges from the conservative wing of the court were seen sharply questioning the administration’s arguments, along with the liberal members.
The case, one of the most critical to be heard this year by the United States Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has significant implications for the limits of presidential powers and the independence of the central bank. The case focuses on whether Trump could have fired Cook and how broadly the concept of “grounds for dismissal” can be interpreted.
Conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in his questions to US Attorney General D. John Sauer, who represents the Trump administration, highlighted the possibility that another president could remove Trump appointees from their positions based on “trivial, outdated, or difficult-to-prove” allegations, using the expression “you reap what you sow.”
Another conservative judge, Amy Coney Barrett, questioned why Cook was not given a hearing to respond to the allegations against him. The Trump administration accuses Cook of mortgage fraud for allegedly listing two different homes as his “primary residence,” an accusation Cook denies. Barrett’s question to Sauer, “Why are you afraid of a hearing?”, was one of the most notable moments in the courtroom.
On the other hand, some judges also posed challenging questions to Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, and expressed reservations about how the lower courts handled the case. However, looking at the overall picture, the questions directed at the Trump administration’s defense were observed to contain tougher and more fundamental objections.
The court must decide, under an urgent filing, whether Trump can dismiss Cook while the legal process is ongoing. Remarkably, the Supreme Court has allowed Cook to remain in his position prior to a final decision.
*This is not investment advice.
