October Term 2025 · Docket 25A312

Can the President Remove a Federal Reserve Governor for Pre-Office Conduct?

President Trump removed Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve. A district court blocked the removal. The core question is whether pre-office conduct can count as cause for removal.

Official caption
Trump, President of U.S. v. Cook
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Sauer opened by stating that deceit or gross negligence in financial transactions is cause for removal. He described Cook submitting mortgage applications for two properties in a two-week period in 2021. He then argued the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the preliminary injunction under the Court's holding in Sawyer.

    Clement opened by describing the Federal Reserve as a uniquely structured entity with a distinct historical tradition.

    Sotomayor pressed on the scope of the D. C. Circuit's decision. She asked whether it addressed the definition of cause, including pre-office conduct and the required nexus. She noted the unprecedented nature of the removal. She said keeping Cook does not thwart any right Trump has to run the department because he conceded he has none.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

General Sauer argued that deceit in financial transactions is cause for removal. He said Cook submitted mortgage applications for two properties in 2021. Mr. Clement argued the Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured entity. He said it has a distinct historical tradition.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 21, 2026.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Trump's side wants Cook removed. They say her pre-office conduct shows deceit or gross negligence.

Cook's side wants to keep her position. They say the Federal Reserve's structure limits presidential removal power.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Sauer said the statutory standard is not limited to in-office misconduct. He argued Congress did not adopt that limitation here.

Clement said the Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured entity. He pointed to its distinct historical tradition.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked whether the D.C. Circuit decided anything beyond the constitutional question.

Justice Thomas questioned whether the Federal Reserve is an executive branch agency at all. He said this is an antecedent point to the removal question. He asked on what basis the Court should conclude the president has removal authority over it. Sotomayor added that the unprecedented nature of the removal reflects what the president did, not what Cook did.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The case tests the scope of presidential removal power over an independent financial regulator. It also raises whether a district court can enjoin a presidential removal order.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON