Supreme Court blocks Trump from firing Fed Lisa Cook—for now

On June 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower-court preliminary injunction that kept Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook on the Board while her lawsuit challenging the attempted removal proceeds. The Court did not decide the ultimate merits of whether the President’s removal was lawful.

The ruling comes the same day as a companion decision, Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332), that broadly strengthens the President’s power to remove leaders of many independent agencies—raising the stakes for how Congress designs agency independence and oversight.

What the Supreme Court did on June 29

In Trump v. Cook (No. 25A312), the Supreme Court denied the government’s stay application. In practical terms, that means the lower court’s order preventing Cook’s removal stays in place pending the case’s further litigation—so Cook is not immediately pushed out while the challenge continues.

The decision turned on procedure. The Court said the President failed to provide the pre-termination protections Congress built into the Federal Reserve Act—specifically, that Cook was entitled to notice of the charges and some opportunity to respond before termination.

Importantly, the Court handled the case narrowly: it said it did not need to resolve Cook’s separate constitutional due-process argument, because the statute’s requirements were enough to make the government’s position unlikely to prevail at this stage.

What happens next in the Cook case

Because this was an interim procedural ruling, it does not settle whether the President’s attempted “for cause” removal was ultimately valid under the Federal Reserve Act. What it does confirm is that, if the government pursues removal again, courts are likely to scrutinize whether the required notice-and-response steps occurred before any final termination decision.

The companion decision that raises the broader stakes

In Trump v. Slaughter (No. 25-332), the Court held that officers who fall within the President’s “general administrative control” must be removable by the President at will.

That general shift doesn’t directly decide Cook’s case, but it changes the wider constitutional baseline for agency structure disputes nationwide—especially where statutes try to limit presidential removal power to “for cause” conditions.

Why this matters for everyday readers

The Federal Reserve Board plays a major role in shaping the policy environment that influences interest rates, inflation trends, and financial stability—factors that affect borrowing, savings, and business planning. This decision, however, is about governance and due process before removal—how long a key policymaker can remain in office while a court dispute is ongoing, and what procedural guardrails must be followed.

What to watch next

• Procedural and merits progress in Cook: how the parties argue whether the required notice-and-response process was satisfied (and what the courts do with that procedural question as the case advances). ([supremecourt.gov](Supremecourt))
• How lower courts apply Slaughter: whether future disputes over “for cause” removal limits for other independent-agency leaders shift in light of the at-will principle. ([supremecourt.gov](Supremecourt))

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court opinion: Trump v. Cook, No. 25A312 (June 29, 2026)
• AP News coverage (June 29, 2026) explaining the Supreme Court decisions
• CBS News explainer on the Supreme Court’s Cook decision