Trump v. Cook

Summary

Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson, denied the Government’s application to stay the preliminary injunction protecting Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from removal. The Court held that presidential determinations of cause are judicially reviewable, that cause requires a substantial justification reflecting the Federal Reserve’s independence, and that interim equitable relief is available. It concluded that Cook’s removal was invalid because the Federal Reserve Act required notice and an opportunity to respond before termination, without deciding her constitutional due process claim or whether the underlying allegations ultimately justify removal. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve’s existing removal protections. Justice Kavanaugh concurred separately to emphasize the unresolved factual questions and the importance of settling the Federal Reserve’s constitutional independence. Justice Jackson concurred separately, concluding that the equities independently required denying a stay. Justice Thomas dissented, disputing the statutory process requirement, the constitutionality of removal restrictions, and judicial authority to grant relief. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented because he would confine review to the grounds addressed below, find those grounds erroneous, and grant a stay. Justice Barrett dissented, criticizing the opinion’s breadth and concluding that the injunction improperly barred removal for the alleged mortgage fraud even after adequate process.