Supreme Court Allows Lisa Cook to Stay on Fed Board For Now
President Donald Trump fired Cook in August over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.
The Supreme Court has allowed Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook to stay on the board pending oral arguments in January.
SCOTUS did not explain why. However, it means that it has agreed to hear the case.
President Donald Trump fired Cook in August over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.
Trump cited a criminal referral from August 15, where William J. Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, told Attorney General Pam Bondi he had “sufficient reason to believe” Cook made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements.
“For example, as detailed in the Criminal Referral, you signed one document attesting that a property in Michigan would be your primary residence for the next year,” wrote Trump. “Two weeks later, you signed another document for a property in Georgia stating that it would be your primary residence for the next year.”
Cook immediately filed a lawsuit against Trump and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
“The President’s actions violate Governor Cook’s Fifth Amendment due process rights and her statutory right to notice and a hearing under the FRA,” according to the lawsuit. “Accordingly, Governor Cook seeks immediate declaratory and injunctive relief to confirm her status as a member of the Board of Governors, safeguard her and the Board’s congressionally mandated independence, and allow Governor Cook and the Federal Reserve to continue its critical work.”
A 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied President Donald Trump a stay, blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
“The district court issued its preliminary injunction after finding that Cook is likely to succeed on two of her claims: her substantive, statutory claim that she was removed without ’cause’ in violation of the Federal Reserve Act and her procedural claim that she did not receive sufficient process prior to her removal in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” wrote Judge Brad Garcia. “I agree with the court’s conclusion that Cook’s due process claim is likely to succeed.”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Does constitutional due process really apply to jobs? That seems like a stretch.
It’s a joke.
No, it does not apply to most jobs, including governmental jobs. Here, the job is rather different, as it is a statutorily constructed one, from a quasi-independent agency, with statutory limitations on removal.
There is no such thing as a “quasi-independent agency”
We have 3 branches of government. Not 4
The Fed is an Executive Branch agency. Its leadership is political appointees of the President, and they make political policy decisions.
Current Federal Law for it, like most other agencies, unconstitutionally restricts the President from replacing its political appointees at will.
Since the Biden administration, SCOTUS and several appellate courts have ruled against such federal laws and in favor of the President’s authority. Spicer v Biden was one of the early ones in this trend.
SCOTUS currently has a challenge to its “Humphrey’s Executor” Opinion which, if it tosses that precedent, will end this agency by agency legal process and obliterate all federal laws that restrict POTUS on this issue – regardless of agency.
However, in a brief opinion earlier this year, the “conservative” justices signaled that they intend to treat the Fed differently. And they got called out for this inconsistency, correctly, by the three liberals. So, this one could end with a different result.
My guess is that SCOTUS will issue a narrow ruling on this one and simply agree that Trump had “cause” to fire her, and will entirely dodge the bigger issue of whether he can replace fed governor’s at will.
One may dispute the notion that the Fed is an “Executive Branch Agency”. The power to regulate the value of the currency is a legislative power, and it is one that Congress does not want to spend its time on, so it delegated that power to a central bank. The Fed does some executive functions, like regulate banks, but its biggest power is legislative..
Huh?
What Executive powers does the Legislative have?
Maybe with the shit down they just make them all unemployed? 😂
SHUT down! 😂😂
“Shit down” is appropriate in this case.
You were correct the first time.
She serves at the pleasure of the President. So more legal street theater.
Fed is supposed to be independent or quasi-independent. That may make her firing a grey area.
There’s nothing “gray” about it. It’s in black and white in the law (12 USC 242) where the President can fire any board member for cause and the determination of cause is totally up to the President because the law says nothing else abut it.
It’s an allegation not a conviction, yet.
Show me in the law where it says that “cause” must be a conviction.
Show me in the law where it says that “cause” must be criminal, in any way.
You can’t because it’s not there and it’s not part of anything.
In our system, you know in the United States, this country, you are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. That means you are not supposed to be treated as if your guilty until your found guilty. The fact that people are treated as guilty before being convicted is a travesty and most of us would be upset if it was us
and rightly so.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
“innocent until proven guilty” only applies to criminal determination and as an instruction to juries. Even the court makes relative assessments of likelihood of guilt and threat in bail determinations before any trial is even held.
“Cause” for firing is not a criminal determination so your argument is completely and utterly meaningless in every way..
Get a friggin clue.
One “mistake” could be forgiven but her “mistakes” where repeated time after time as to be a series of premeditated “mistakes”. It’s a pattern of poor judgement and inappropriate behaviour from someone who should be leading by example.
Or put it this way, she’s refused to cut rates which would absolutely help the country whole at the same time lying on mortgage application after mortgage application to benefit monetarily from lower mortgage rates. Something she has steadfastly refused to do for America.
The allegation is the cause. She’s not being tried by Trump, but Trump as POTUS has the authority to can someone who appears to have violated the law, because the accusation alone can create in the public’s mind a lack of trust in a person in a position of public trust.
Curious which one of the infinite parallel universes has a US Constitution in which there are 4 branches of government, in which “quasi independent” agencies are a thing.
You mean, like the Intelligence Community?
There’s no grey area. The constitution is crystal clear that ALL executive authority belongs to the president.
She’s black.
It appears she walks with a cane, so she may be handicapped too!
Oh, ‘scuse me – differently abled!
All of the above. The SCOTUS should have removed he per the President.
Not to mention, she’s a DEI hire in the first place, drastically unqualified for the job.
And she was confirmed 50/50 with Kamaltoe casting tie breaker, Being black and DEI is irrelevant though. You shouldn’t hire because she’s black and you shouldn’t fire her because she’s back. She might actually be qualified. She has the credentials. I’m not proficient in economics and can’t judge. However, he legal trouble certainly suggests she should resign.
Being a DEI hire is “cause”.
No it’s not. That is absurd, That is saying you can fire someone because they’re black.
Don’t put your retarded words in my mouth. I said “DEI,” not “black”.
Being a DEI hire is most certainly cause for someone to be fired – not least of which because it is an illegal hiring criterion.
The only one spouting unAmerican words is yourself. The person starting the thread said black. If you truely believe she is unqualified because she appears to be a DEI hire then you’re as bad as the progressives and are the type of person I’d rather not interact with at all. It’s a pity there isn’t an ignore button here because you’d make my list along with a few others. Stay off my responses and I’ll stay of yours.
If there were an “ignore” button here I don’t think anyone would be burdened seeing any of your moronic comments.
You know nothing of what is “American”. I doubt you even are American.
ztakddot: No it’s not. That is absurd, That is saying you can fire someone because they’re black.
No, not being fired for being black. When someone is a DEI hire, that suggests they were hired when there were better candidates available, at best, or hired when not qualified, at worst. Either way, they were hired when someone else better qualified could have been, and possibly should have been, hired.
She being fired because she’s unqualified.
The stated reason for her firing was that she lied on her mortgage applications.
No, she was fired because she was credibly accused of mortgage fraud. It’s rather unseemly for someone to be on the fed board when they can’t manage their own finances.
I thought she was fired for being a liar and a cheat.
No, she doesn’t have the ‘credentials’. Her specialty in research is all related to ‘racial impact’ which is a load of horse sh*t. She’s a DEI baby, through and through. That’s reason enough to let her go.
“Credentials” and “qualifications” are two different things.
They should proceed to prosecute her for fraud.
So, let’s do this another way. Investigate her fully. Charge her with mortgage fraud, put her on trial, if need be. Once she is convicted–not only do you can her, put her in jail and claw back her pay and benefits.
Do both. Investigate and appeal to supreme court. The latter to set the precedent (hopefully),
The legal route could take years though.
She’s being played and somewhere in the future will regret it. She had a card to play in I’ll walk away if you decline to prosecute. It will take 1-2 years but she won’t like the end result.
‘…Donald Trump fired Cook in August over allegations that she committed mortgage fraud.’
So, prove it in court, crossing & doting all the 5th amendment t’s and i’s, then fire her. Problem solved.
Do you really think that every single person being fired “FOR CAUSE” has to be criminally adjudicated and found guilty first.
Hiring and firing are administrative actions, not legal actions. Get her into whatever disciplinary process the Fed has and lay out the allegations and the evidence. They can then make an administrative decision, based on evidence provided, to fire her. She can have her due judicial process later.
She doesn’t even have to be guilty, just the appearance of corruption is unacceptable.
Fire her AND throw her in prison.
It’s the risk you take when you raise instead of fold, like she did.
LOL. What a complete joke. The “due process”, itself, renders her unable to serve on the board, since the law explicitly says:
Cook cannot devote her “entire time” to the Board if she is fighting off a criminal suit (that is obviously open-and-shut, to boot).
Did you drop a zero? That’s unbelievable.
OMG, you didn’t. But it looks like that’s 1930s dollars.
Read the Fed Board was set up without any oversight when it was set up by the Socialists
Then they shouldn’t have tried to make it part of the branch of government where power is completely concentrated in one person.
It’s not like the only other two choices were better.
No sense just no sense
absolute bssss on the scotus
the fear of the lefty street armies at work here with the veiled and vile threats that the left has shown/proven they will put into action
we’re overlooking the major problem, if board members serve at the pleasure of the president as in 12 USC 242 then no court need interfere. we are establishing that the judiciary micromanages the executive. Here’s still hoping that one day Trump grows a pair and ignores any court usurping his executive powers
I agree in principle, but doing so would almost certainly open him up to impeachment, even if he’s right. Trump is smarter to allow SCOTUS to settle the situation. That way President Vance will know one way or another what he can and cannot do in such a situation and he won’t have to worry about being impeached.
Trump is smarter than that. Having taken a bullet for you and me would indicate to a reasonable, normal person that he already has a pair. Ignoring federal court orders is a really stupid and counterproductive strategery. Just ask Orval Faubus.
“Conservative” Supreme Court in action.
“Conservative” Supreme Court inaction
The Court must determine what “for cause” means.