What we're covering
• Several conservative justices were skeptical of President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, at points seemingly discussing how Cook should win, rather than whether she would.
• The case, one of the most important the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court will decide this year, has implications for the extent of presidential power and the independence of the central bank.
Our live coverage of the Supreme Court arguments has ended for the day. Check out our takeaways and scroll down to review our analysis from the the court.
Takeaways from the arguments
The Supreme Court signaled deep skepticism Wednesday that President Donald Trump had the authority to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, with several conservative justices joining their liberal colleagues in posing pointed questions of the lawyer defending the president.
Here are the key takeaways:
Conservatives rush to push Trump
Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett jumped on the Trump administration position in several aspects, including the lack of due process and whether the allegations against Cook justify her firing.
Even Alito wasn’t happy with Trump
Even Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative who also appeared to have concerns with lower court rulings that sided with Cook, at one point expressed annoyance that the case was being rushed through the courts and said that Trump’s move was “handled in a very cursory manner.”
How can Cook win?
A narrow ruling simply concluding that Trump had not met the threshold for an emergency intervention would all but guarantee that the case would back before the justices within a year or two. Yet it would also mean that Cook would remain the job in the meantime.
No traction for DOJ’s most expansive argument
Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly argued that courts have no business scrutinizing some of his most controversial moves, including his desire to send National Guard troops to major cities and his effort to use a sweeping wartime authority to quickly deport migrants.
Miss our live conversation? Catch up here
Read our expert analysis from today’s arguments below.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, Lisa Cook and Ben Bernanke were in the courtroom
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook appeared at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the Justices heard arguments over Cook’s termination by President Donald Trump for alleged mortgage fraud.
Several other central bankers also attended in support of Cook, including former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke and Fed Governor Michael Barr. Chair Powell’s wife and several members of Cook’s family were also in attendance.
It was a lively and full courtroom during Wednesday’s oral arguments, with several moments of murmur and soft laughter, including at multiple references by the Justices to Trump’s Truth Social post notifying Cook of her termination.
Powell’s appearance comes after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that it would be a mistake for the Fed chief to attend. “If you’re trying not to politicize the Fed, for the Fed chair to be sitting there trying to put his thumb on the scale, that’s a mistake,” Bessent told CNBC on Monday.
Yet Bessent himself attended oral arguments over Trump’s tariffs in November, telling Fox News before the arguments he wanted a “ringside seat.”
Lisa Cook's post-argument statement focuses on Fed's independence
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, the subject of the case argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court – and who was present for oral argument – said “the case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.”
“Research and experience show that Federal Reserve independence is essential to fulfilling the congressional mandate of price stability and maximum employment. That is why Congress chose to insulate the Federal Reserve from political threats, while holding it accountable for delivering on that mandate,” Cook said in a statement after oral arguments concluded. “For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people.”
The case is about whether President Donald Trump had the legal authority to fire Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. While unproven, it’s unclear if that would even meet the criteria necessary for a president to dismiss a Fed governor “for cause.”
CNN analyst: Fed firing may be one executive power line that even this Supreme Court won’t cross
The Supreme Court has spent much of the last year bending over backwards to grant “emergency” relief to President Donald Trump in cases in which lower courts had blocked his initiatives.
Against that backdrop, I went into today’s argument a bit nervous that the justices would be looking for another way to do so here – and worried about what that would mean for the independence of the Federal Reserve and, more broadly, for the ability of lower courts to rein in unlawful firings of other government officers and employees.
Instead, across the 119-minute argument, what I heard over and over again is that the Court meant what it said last May in the Wilcox case—when it, however unpersuasively, reaffirmed the constitutional independence of the Fed (even while allowing the president to dismantle other “independent” agencies). That independence wouldn’t be worth very much, as several justices pointed out during today’s argument, if there was no way to assess whether the president really did have “good cause” for attempting to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook.
And if that’s where a majority of the Court is, then the only question here isn’t whether they’ll rule against Trump, but why.
The answer may be limited to the Fed; indeed, it may even be limited to Cook, specifically. But at least for now, this appears to be one executive power line that even this Supreme Court won’t cross.
Supreme Court conservatives are skeptical of Trump’s firing of Fed governor
The Supreme Court signaled skepticism Wednesday over President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, with several conservative justices joining the court’s liberal bloc in raising fundamental questions about the administration’s position.
“What goes around comes around,” conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh told US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, pointing to the possibility of a future president’s ability to fire Trump nominees based on “cause” that might be “trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, also appeared to take issue with the administration’s position that Cook was not entitled to a hearing to answer Trump’s allegations against her. The administration has alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud by reporting two different homes as her primary residence. Cook has denied wrongdoing.
“Why are you afraid of a hearing?” Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer at one point.
To be sure, several of the same justices — including Barrett — asked difficult questions of Cook’s attorney, Paul Clement. And some seemed to have reservations with how lower courts had resolved the case. But the tenor of the questions for Sauer appeared to be both more aggressive and more aimed at the administration’s fundamental arguments.
The high court is being asked, on an emergency basis, to decide if Trump can fire Cook in the meantime, while her case continues. Notably, the court has already allowed Cook to remain in her post while it prepared for arguments Wednesday.
Arguments ended just after noon.
Cook faces softer, more technical bench in second hour
The justices posed difficult questions of Lisa Cook’s attorney during the second hour of the arguments, but those inquiries were more technical and appeared to be focused mostly on how to resolve the case in her favor — rather than whether she should win.
Several of the conservative justices seemed to be debating whether to return the case to lower courts for further review.
Chief Justice John Roberts, meanwhile, suggested there might be little reason to hold some sort of hearing reviewing the mortgage fraud allegations if her main counterpoint is that she simply made an inadvertent error.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, at one point, suggested that the “simplest way to decide this case” would be simply to hold that “there was insufficient process” to review the Trump administration’s allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook. That would effectively allow Cook to remain on the job while her case continues in lower courts.
“That,” said Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, “would be a very simple way to decide this case.”
Some Fed officials have been investigated, but none were fired until Trump's attempt
Up until President Donald Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook last year, no other president has ever attempted to do so in the central bank’s long history, as Paul Clement, Cook’s attorney, pointed out.
“The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured entity with a distinct historical tradition,” Clement said. “Part of that historical tradition is an unbroken history going back to its founding in 1913 in which no president from Woodrow Wilson to Joseph Biden has ever even tried to remove a governor for cause, despite the ever-present temptation for lower rates and easier money.”
Indeed, all presidents before Trump have resisted firing Fed officials, even though some central bankers have been subject to investigations while in office. In 2020, Robert Kaplan, then head of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas; and Eric Rosengren, president of the Boston Fed, carried out financial transactions at a time when the Fed deployed large-scale operations to stabilize the economy in the beginning of the pandemic.
After a yearslong probe, the Fed’s internal watchdog in 2024 cleared both policymakers of wrongdoing. They both retired in 2021 and neither was subject to a firing attempt.
That’s in contrast to Cook, whom Trump is trying to push out over accusations that she committed mortgage fraud before she even assumed her current role.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell is also now under investigation by the Justice Department over testimony he gave to Congress on a renovation of the Fed’s headquarters.
Supreme Court shielded the Fed from Trump last year
The Supreme Court has previously drawn a line of protection around the independence of the Federal Reserve, asserting in an opinion last year that the agency’s unique structure and “distinct historical tradition” made it different from other agencies Trump has attempted to seize control of since returning to power last year.
In another case last year, the court allowed Trump to fire federal labor officials — but stressed that the Fed was different.
Cook has relied heavily on that single sentence in her written arguments.
But critics, even those who support independence for the Fed, have questioned the logic of the court allowing Trump to fire the leaders of some independent agencies but not the Fed. Squaring those positions is likely to be central to the oral arguments.
“It’s logically incoherent and doctrinally unworkable,” said Lev Menand, a law professor at Columbia University who published a book on the central bank in 2022. “The legal commentariat have ambitions that the court can flesh this out into something that makes sense, but I’m highly skeptical.”
Justices are focused on due process: Here's why
Key justices asked President Donald Trump’s lawyer about the government’s due process obligations to Lisa Cook. It’s a crucial question because that was the basis of DC Circuit ruling that the administration wants put on pause.
Due process refers to constitutional protections that prohibit deprivations “of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” It protects people from being subject to arbitrary and unjustified actions by the government that infringe on their rights.
The clause typically requires some sort of process before the government takes such an action against a person – and often, an opportunity during that process for the person to respond.
Trump has countered that Cook was not entitled to due process because holding an office in the federal government is not “property” that Trump’s action is depriving her of.
The DC Circuit indicated that it was not disturbing a judge’s order temporarily reinstating Cook to her position because it agreed with the arguments that the firing likely violated her due process rights.
The justices have asked the president’s lawyer, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer about Trump’s failure to offer Cook a formal proceeding to respond to the allegations Trump was making against her to justify her removal.
Justice Samuel Alito, however, also asked Cook’s attorney about the claim that holding office amounts to property for due process purposes.
Cook puts Marbury v. Madison in the spotlight
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is leaning in part on a landmark 19th-century Supreme Court decision to press her case that she has a “legal right” in her office.
The high court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison is known for its seismic effect on the structure of the federal government: It established the Supreme Court’s power to review and strike down congressional acts.
But the ruling from Chief Justice John Marshall – stemming from then-Secretary of State James Madison’s refusal to deliver a judicial commission issued by outgoing President John Adams – also held that William Marbury had a “vested legal right” in his office and that his claim to it was reviewable by federal courts.
A central sticking point in the Cook case is whether a federal official fired by the president can even have their case reviewed by courts. Trump has argued they cannot. Cook counters that the court said differently in Marbury, a decision that is usually the first read by every constitutional law student and that is still frequently cited by the justices.
“In the ensuing two centuries, this court has ‘consistently reviewed – and sometimes invalidated – presidential decisions to fire officers who were removable only for cause,’” Cook’s lawyers wrote.
Trump had a rough first hour of oral arguments in Cook case
President Donald Trump’s effort to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve faced an uphill fight heading into the Supreme Court arguments Wednesday.
After more than an hour of arguments, the justices gave the administration little reason to think those predictions were wrong. Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, faced pointed, difficult questions – not just from the court’s three-justice liberal wing, but also from several conservatives.
Even Justice Samuel Alito, who regularly sides with the administration, seemed annoyed with the way the Justice Department had handled the case.
Cook’s attorney, Paul Clement, is now speaking before the justices.
Barrett asks why administration is “afraid” of giving Cook a hearing to contest fraud allegations
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett at one point pressed Solicitor General D. John Sauer on why the administration is “afraid” of giving Lisa Cook a hearing where she could formally contest the mortgage fraud allegations that President Donald Trump cited as his reason for trying to fire her.
“Why are you afraid of a hearing? Or what would there be that would be wrong with process? I mean, you spent a lot of time litigating the case. It’s gone up from the district court to the court of appeals and now we’re here,” said Barrett, who was appointed to the bench by Trump during his first term.
Sauer is arguing that the administration didn’t need to provide Cook with any more due process than a notice of the allegations and a few days to rebut them, and that federal courts are powerless to order officials to do much more.
“It’s our position that adequate process was already provided,” he told Barrett.
Top Supreme Court lawyer Paul Clement is having a busy year
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has selected one of the nation’s best-known Supreme Court advocates to make her pitch to the justices, underscoring the significance of the case and a split within conservative legal circles over the president’s power to remove her.
At the lectern now is Paul Clement, a US solicitor general during the George W. Bush adminstration who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia in the early 1990s, has argued more than 100 cases at the high court — including on the Second Amendment, religious rights and the government’s power to regulate.
Clement is having a particularly active term this year.
He has already won a case for a Republican congressman from Illinois who is challenging that state’s absentee ballot law. He represented major music labels in an important copyright dispute that was argued in December. He also represented Chevron earlier this month in a case dealing with whether Louisiana parishes may sue the petroleum industry in state court over damages oil production caused to the Gulf coast.
Kavanaugh is the latest conservative to signal deep skepticism of Trump’s position
Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that he is deeply skeptical of President Donald Trump’s position and the practical impact it would have — the latest conservative justice to raise concerns with the administration’s argument.
“What goes around comes around,” Kavanaugh told US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, pointing to the possibility of a future president’s ability to fire Trump nominees based on “cause” that might be “trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove.”
Even though Kavanaugh was already widely viewed as a strong supporter of Fed independence heading into the arguments, his line of questioning was nevertheless striking.
Under the administration’s theory, Kavanaugh said, “all the current president’s appointments would likely be removed for cause” when Trump leaves office.
Sauer said he doesn’t disagree that Fed independence is important but said there was a “balance to be struck” with the president’s power to run the executive branch.
Trump relies on a 1901 precedent involving an aging commissioner
Part of Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s argument hangs on a 125-year-old precedent involving the removal of a court official who was working in Native American territory and trying to recover more than $5,000 in back pay.
William Reagan was appointed by a court as a commissioner in Native territory in 1893. Three years later, a judge sought to remove Reagan, citing his “age and the infirmities incident thereto.”
Reagan noted he was given no notice of a charge against him and had no opportunity to defend himself — arguments similar to those Cook has raised to dispute her own firing. The Supreme Court nonetheless sided against Reagan, finding that Congress had not explicitly defined which causes could be used to remove him. Reagan, the court concluded, was not entitled to a hearing.
“This court upheld a lower court’s removal of an inferior officer with ‘no notice of any charge against him, and no hearing,’” the Trump administration said in its brief, quoting from the decision in Reagan.
But Cook has argued that case is inapplicable, in large part because Reagan served an indefinite term and was effectively an “at pleasure” employee.
“This case is entirely unlike Reagan,” Cook told the Supreme Court. “In contrast to the commissioner there, Governor Cook serves for a ‘fixed period’ of fourteen years.”
The focus on history underscores how unusual it is to have a president attempting to fire officials at the Federal Reserve and other agencies.
Justice Alito appears annoyed with Trump's rush to fire Lisa Cook
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito appeared to question why the case over Lisa Cook’s firing was being decided on an emergency basis — suggesting a degree of annoyance that the Trump administration rushed the appeal up the Supreme Court.
“Is there any reason why this whole matter had to be handled…in such a hurried manner?” Alito asked Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
Alito described the administration’s handling of the Cook case as being done in a “very cursory manner.” At one point he questioned whether “the mortgage applications are even in the record in this case.”
Unlike most Supreme Court cases that are argued, the Cook matter is an emergency appeal – the kind of case often handled without argument. The justices will ultimately decide whether Cook can be fired while her case continues, though the decision could have a significant impact on the merits of her case.
Sotomayor on Trump’s claims against Cook: "I don't think this rises to an infamous crime"
Justice Sotomayor said that there is a factual dispute about the claims President Trump is making about Fed Governor Lisa Cook, suggesting that more proceedings should play out at lower courts before the Supreme Court intervenes.
“I don’t think this rises to an infamous crime,” Sotomayor told US Solicitor General John Sauer, referring to a legal standard that might be relevant to the case.
Her inquiry of Sauer noted that the evidence that has come out about Cook’s representations to her banks that undercut the idea that the banks were deceived.
Threat of economic disaster looms large over Cook case and tariffs dispute
Solicitor General D. John Sauer was asked to respond to predictions that a ruling in favor of President Donald Trump could upend financial markets.
He found himself having to confront elements of an argument he pushed last year when he argued before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s sweeping tariffs.
The justices have yet to resolve the challenge to Trump’s “reciprocal” tariffs, but they’ve allowed them to remain in effect for now as they decide the case.
During arguments in that case in November, Sauer told the justices that shooting down the tariffs could risk “ruinous economic and national security consequences” for the United States.
