I believe Trump’s decision to fire Fed Governor Li

I believe Trump’s decision to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook so that he can secure a four-person majority on the Fed’s seven-member Board of Governors will be overturned, given the U.S. Supreme Court Trump v Wilcox decision in May 2025. In the interim, Cook could immediately seek an injunction reinstating her while litigation moves forward. No charges have been filed against her, though a Justice Department official last week signaled plans to investigate her.

In a letter posted on Truth Social Monday, Trump said he had “sufficient cause” to fire Cook, the first Black woman to serve on the Fed Board in Washington, based on the allegations she made false statements on one or more mortgage loans. The move could give Trump another chance to name someone to the Fed board as he repeatedly pressures officials to lower interest rates.

Cook said Trump has no authority to fire her, and she won’t resign. “President Trump purported to fire me ‘for cause’ when no cause exists under the law, and he has no authority to do so,” Cook said in a statement released by her attorney. “I will not resign. I will continue to carry out my duties to help the American economy as I have been doing since 2022.”

In the Trump v Wilcox case, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's emergency application for a stay, allowing President Trump to remove Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Cathy Harris from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Lower courts had initially ruled the firings unlawful under for-cause removal protections established by Congress, but the Supreme Court paused those orders pending full litigation.

The majority opinion, unsigned, reasoned that the NLRB and MSPB exercise "considerable executive power," making it likely the president can remove their members without cause, consistent with Article II of the Constitution vesting executive authority in the president. This aligns with recent precedents like Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (2020), which limited protections for single-director agencies, and signals a potential narrowing of Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), the landmark case upholding for-cause protections for multi-member independent agencies to ensure expertise and bipartisanship free from political interference.

Crucially, the Court explicitly distinguished the Federal Reserve, stating its structure does not fall under the same analysis: "The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States." This footnote, citing Seila Law at 591 U.S. 222 n.8, shields the Fed's Board of Governors and Federal Open Market Committee from similar at-will removals, preserving the central bank's independence amid concerns over market stability and Trump's public criticisms of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Justice Elena Kagan dissented (joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson), arguing the stay improperly overrides Humphrey's Executor via the emergency docket and questioning the Fed carve-out's logic, as the Fed's protections rest on the same foundations.

The decision, while temporary, forecasts broader presidential control over independent agencies like the NLRB (which handles labor disputes) and MSPB (which adjudicates federal employee appeals), but reinforces the Fed's special status to avoid economic disruption. Full merits briefing is ongoing in the D.C. Circuit, with potential Supreme Court review later in 2025.