President Trump’s push to fire members of independent federal agencies received a mixed reception from the Supreme Court. In two separate decisions issued simultaneously, the court ruled that Trump could not fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board over questionable accusations of wrongdoing while upholding Trump’s firing of a member of a different independent agency.
Supreme Court rules Trump can’t fire Cook, for now
In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected, for now, President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook.
In his majority opinion, Roberts rejected the Trump administration’s argument that the courts could not review the claim that Cook was fired for cause. Roberts also affirmed that Cook could maintain her position while the merits of the case for firing her are being disputed.
Roberts argued that allowing the Trump administration to assert its right to fire Cook without judicial review would go against the independent nature of the Federal Reserve Board as it was designed by Congress.
Accepting the administration’s argument “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment,” Roberts concluded, adding that such a position would be “out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference.”
The ruling does not prevent Trump from continuing his effort to fire Cook, but it protects her ability to remain in her position for now.
As Blavity previously reported, Trump attempted in 2025 to fire Cook as the president clashed with the Fed over interest rate policy. Trump attempted to justify her firing using accusations that Cook had committed mortgage fraud; the Trump administration has made similar fraud accusations against political opponents of Trump using questionable evidence.
Cook has denied the accusations against her, and a federal court blocked her firing, allowing her to remain as a Fed member while the administration attempted to push her out.
Cook welcomed Monday’s Supreme Court decision and reiterated her argument that Trump’s move to fire her was “an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people.”
Supreme Court allows Trump to fire other independent agency members
The court’s ruling in favor of Cook stands in sharp contrast to its decision in the case of Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, who was removed by Trump from the Federal Trade Commission.
In a 6-3 decision, also authored by Roberts, the court upheld Trump’s firing of Slaughter. The decision not only contrasts with that made for Cook but also overturns a 1935 precedent that limited the president’s ability to fire members of the FTC.
In the Slaughter case, the court ruled that restrictions on the president’s ability to fire members of federal agencies are unconstitutional.
“Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one president,” the chief justice wrote in the ruling.
“Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him,” the ruling concluded. “Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the president, and the president to the people.”
The Cook and Slaughter cases were separate, but the two rulings were issued simultaneously. Together, they establish a general principle that expands the president’s ability to fire officials at independent agencies while making an exception for the Federal Reserve Board because of the unique structure of that particular agency under the Federal Reserve Act.
The two rulings divided the Supreme Court, with only Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joining the majority in both cases. The court’s liberal justices sided with Roberts and Kavanaugh in the Cook ruling, while the court’s six conservative justices, including Roberts and Kavanaugh, made up the majority in the Slaughter case.
Overall, the Supreme Court has endorsed a conservative position that empowers Trump to assert greater authority over officials who were meant to be outside political control. While the court has temporarily shielded one official from Trump’s efforts, it is leaving the door open for the president to reshape supposedly independent agencies to fit his agenda.