The judge blocks the impeachment, the case will go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Cook may participate in the Federal Reserve's September decision vote

Defending the Independence of the Federal Reserve! Trump's process to "dismiss" Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has been halted.

According to media reports, on Tuesday evening local time, Judge Jia Cobb of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling that blocks the Trump administration's intention to "dismiss" Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

At the same time, the judge granted Cook's request and issued a temporary restraining order. This means that Cook will not be removed from the Federal Reserve Board until the case is further reviewed, allowing her to attend next week's Federal Reserve monetary policy meeting and vote.

However, the legal uncertainty is far from resolved. The judge's decision is only "temporary," marking the beginning of a lawsuit that could last for months.

According to CCTV News, on August 25, local time, U.S. President Trump publicly announced on his social media platform "Truth Social" a letter to Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, declaring her immediate dismissal. The letter mentioned a criminal referral submitted by the Federal Housing Finance Agency on August 15, alleging that Cook made false statements in mortgage documents.

Defending the Independence of the Federal Reserve, Striking a Blow to Trump's "Firing" Intentions

Judge Jia Cobb clearly stated in the ruling that Cook's side has convincingly demonstrated that her dismissal violates the "for cause removal" clause in the Federal Reserve Act. The judge pointed out:

“‘For cause removal’ does not mean that someone can be dismissed purely for actions that occurred before their appointment.”

The ruling further noted that the dismissal action may also violate Cook's due process rights granted by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The statement emphasized that “the public interest in the independence of the Federal Reserve favors Cook's reinstatement,” adding that “this independence is crucial for promoting the stability of the national banking system.”

Jia Cobb concluded:

“She has demonstrated that being dismissed would cause irreparable harm. Ultimately, the balance of public interest and equity principles also favors Cook.”

Cook's attorney, Abbe David Lowell, stated in a statement that this ruling “recognizes and reaffirms the importance of protecting the Federal Reserve from illegal political interference.”

Temporary Restraining Order in Effect, Cook Retains Position and Voting Rights

The core of the case lies in the temporary restraining order issued simultaneously by the judge.

Wall Street Journal previously mentioned, when Cook appealed in this case, she expressed hope that a U.S. judge would issue a temporary restraining order—to prevent Trump and other defendants from taking action during the case proceedings, thereby maintaining the status quo of the Federal Reserve and protecting the interests of the American public This move provides Cook with a legal protection barrier, allowing her to continue fulfilling her duties as a Federal Reserve Board member without facing the immediate risk of being dismissed.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court hinted in a ruling that the president's power to dismiss Federal Reserve Board members is limited, and members of the Federal Reserve Board will be afforded special protection. The recent district court ruling reaffirms this principle.

However, the key aspect of this ruling is its temporary nature. Reports have highlighted the term "for now," indicating that this is not a final judgment but rather a measure to maintain the status quo during the case proceedings.

Analysis generally suggests that this ruling currently pertains only to Cook's short-term eligibility issue, but the Trump administration is almost certain to appeal this decision again.

Next Steps: Appeal and Supreme Court Showdown

Cook's legal battle is far from over.

Elliott Stein, a senior litigation analyst at Bloomberg Industry Research, stated that the ruling aligns with market expectations and anticipates that Cook will also prevail in the preliminary ruling at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Given the case's high sensitivity and its profound implications for the future boundaries of executive power, many observers believe that the ultimate battleground for this lawsuit will be the U.S. Supreme Court. At that time, the decision of the nine justices will set a decisive legal precedent for this case.

Stein added that unless the appellate court stays this ruling, Cook will be able to attend the Federal Reserve's interest rate committee meeting on September 16-17. He believes that, given the favorable configuration of judges handling emergency motions for Cook, "it is expected that the D.C. Circuit Court will not stay this ruling." Additionally, it is unlikely that the case will be submitted to the Supreme Court for review before next week's Federal Reserve meeting.

Looking ahead to a longer legal path, Stein believes that when the case ultimately reaches the Supreme Court, it will be "a more evenly matched contest" for Cook