
The Supreme Court upheld Fed independence in a 5-4 ruling, creating a carve-out from the president's removal power even as it expanded that power over other agencies.
The Supreme Court on Monday kept in place a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, preserving the central bank’s independence from direct presidential control. The 5-4 vote came on the Court’s interim docket, with Chief Justice John Roberts joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The Cook case is the second major executive-power ruling this term. Earlier, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Court overruled the 1935 precedent Humphrey’s Executor and held that the president can remove heads of administrative agencies at will. Chief Justice Roberts wrote both opinions, creating a double standard: most agency heads are now at-will employees, but the Fed remains protected by a “for cause” removal standard under the Federal Reserve Act.
“America has always had a central bank,” Roberts wrote in the Cook decision, tracing the lineage from the Bank of North America through the First and Second Banks of the United States. The Federal Reserve, he argued, follows in that tradition, and its “uniquely structured, quasi-private” character justifies independence even as the Court strips similar protections from other agencies. The majority cited the risk of “calamities that could arise from even the ‘suspicion’ of political manipulation of monetary policy” as a key reason for the carve-out.
Justice Thomas, in a dissent that quoted the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, challenged the historical reasoning. The First and Second Banks “were banks with no executive power,” Thomas wrote. The modern Federal Reserve Board, by contrast, is “unquestionably a federal agency that wields considerable executive power,” including issuing rules, levying assessments, banning individuals from banking, and enforcing statutes through civil and criminal penalties. He called the Fed a “novel ‘federal agency’ with ‘broad powers affecting the entire banking and currency system,’” quoting Woodrow Wilson.
The ruling leaves the Fed’s institutional structure intact at a time when monetary policy is under intense scrutiny. The central bank has held interest rates at 5.25%-5.5% since July 2023, and traders are watching for any sign that political pressure could shift the path of rates. The decision removes one source of uncertainty, though the underlying legal questions about the Fed’s status remain unresolved.
The Court has rarely ruled on the Fed’s legality since a pair of 1920s decisions confirmed that Federal Reserve banks are entities arising under federal law. In an earlier case this term, Trump v. Wilcox, the justices hinted that the Fed stands apart due to its historical lineage, but did not directly address removal. The Cook ruling now gives that hint the force of precedent.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, warned that the majority’s logic could allow the Fed to operate with executive power beyond the president’s control, a situation he said the Constitution does not permit. The other three dissenters did not join Thomas’s full historical analysis but agreed that the injunction should be lifted.
The case now returns to the lower courts for further proceedings. No date has been set for a final ruling on the legality of Cook’s removal.
Prepared with AlphaScala editorial tooling from the source reporting linked above. Indexable analysis may include a cited Alpha Score value. Publishing checks screen each story before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.