D.C. Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Firing Fed Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook
The two judges agreed that Cook’s “removal likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
A 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied President Donald Trump a stay, blocking him from firing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.
Judge Brad Garcia and Judge J. Michelle Childs ruled in favor of Cook.
Judge Greg Katsas dissented.
“Given that Cook has a property interest in her position, she is entitled to ‘some kind’ of process before removal,” argued the two judges.
Trump fired Cook on August 26 for allegedly committing mortgage fraud.
Cook sued Trump and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell to block her firing.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a temporary restraining order on September 9, which allowed Cook to stay on the board.
Garcia, who penned the majority opinion, said he agreed with the district court that Cook’s “removal likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.”
“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 Garcia. “I agree with the court’s conclusion that Cook’s due process claim is likely to succeed.”
Garcia added (I omitted citations):
The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly held that a public official with “for cause” protection from removal has a constitutionally protected property interest in her position. Under those precedents, Cook has such a property interest because the Federal Reserve Act provides that she may be removed only “for cause.” She therefore may not be removed prior to being provided “some kind” of meaningful notice and opportunity to respond.
—
But in this singular case the government has pointedly not argued that the President has unfettered removal authority over members of the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors. To the contrary, the government concedes that Cook is protected, by statute, from removal except for cause. In due process parlance, that protection—if it does anything at all—provides a “legitimate” and “objective basis for believing” that Cook does not serve at will.
Garcia then slammed the cases Trump’s team used to justify the stay, describing them as out of place. Garcia said the government overread one case, Taylor v. Beckham, because it did not “address the question we face here.”
“Crucially, the case involved nothing akin to a statutory for-cause removal protection: The only argument for a property interest was that the offices in question were ‘both profitable and honorable,'” argued Garcia.
Garcia also said that since Cook has been working despite the firing, the “emergency relief would thus upend, not preserve, the status quo.”
“A stay would itself introduce the possibility of ‘the disruptive effect of the repeated removal and reinstatement’ of Cook during this litigation,” concluded Garcia.
The case is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.
[Featured image via Federal Reserve and White House]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In other news, the Federal Appeals court gives themselves the right to hire and fire Federal employees.
Courts have usurped power that they don’t have, and nobody does a thing about it.
Until Trump came along.
Okay, if she want’s “process,” throw her a “Goodbye Hack” party and give her two weeks notice
If that fails, the tried and true moving her desk to the ladies room (or transgender bathroom) and giving her no work, or reviewing the heck out of the work she does should be corrective.
Any rights would be contractural. It’s a fire at will deal.
No, it isn’t. The statute, which Trump did not challenge, explicitly says the president can’t fire her at will, he can only fire her for cause.
And, Cook’s mortgage fraud malfeasance reveals incredibly poor judgment, dishonesty and a lack of integrity that suffice, under any objective appraisal (and, certainly by private sector, financial industry standards) to constitute a basis for a “for cause” termination.
One mistake could maybe be excused. But this wasnt one mistake. It was a series of mistakes all going in the same direction. We should also expect more from our supposed “leaders”. We should expect “leaders” to be leading by example. This woman is not a leader.
OK, then give her due process, and after you’ve due processed her for her mortgage fraud, throw her in prison for it while you’re at it.
FAFO, woman.
Correct. The only issue is whether she has the right to notice, response, consideration, and a subsequent final decision. The government argues that she has had that and has also responded.
It was always an interesting question for me as to whether email (or a “twitter” et al posting had the same value as a notice letter with a stamp. ( ” A letter mailed is a letter received. ”
I never wanted to test the homing-pigeon reliability of a bunch of electrons whizzing around the World-wide-web. However it’s been a long time since I was in the game and no doubt the question of reliability of electronic notice has been resolved.
The question as to whether her alleged mortgage frauds constitute
“Cause” does not seem to me to ever be within the jurisdiction of the court. It’s a matter of judgement and it’s my (humble and limited) belief that the court may not substitute its judgement for that of the court.
Correct. The definition of Cause is an Executive decision, since the Judiciary does not run the Executive Branch.
Funny how the Judiciary believes their hands can be in everything the Executive Branch does. But get their panties in a twist when the EB says anything that causes the JB to get the vapors.
Simple sokution. Stay in your lane. This is not a criminal issue it’s a “I don’t trust you as far as I can throw your fat ass due to your poor decision making.”
In addition for moral turpitude, should should be fired for being grossly unqualified for the job. I mean seriously, this person is just another Biden DEI hire who doesn’t come even remotely close to having the level of skill and knowledge required for this particular job.
Actually, the law does not say that the President can fire a Fed governor for cause, it ASSUMES that the President is able to fire a Fed Governor for cause, since it is only addressed in the passive:
Further, if Cook is dealing with having to defend herself in a criminal matter then she would have to resign because in 12 USC Sec241 it states (my emboldening):
So there is a lesson to be learned here:
Bring criminal charges first, then fire the person.
I’ve been fired a couple of times and there was no due process or any other process other than ‘get out’!
Right
Down vote oops.
Fixed it for you. lol
Your experience is irrelevant, because you were not in a position that the law explicitly protects, and forbids firing except for cause.
It’s been obvious nothing coerrt can be d9ne in DC.
The fact that she is “accused” of committing mortgage fraud I guess doesn’t count as “for cause” to these judges?
Does she have to be found guilty of said allegation beforehand, or is that not even considered “for cause” by these robed wonders?
What about the perception of wrong doing for a position of such stature, a position which itself happens to have a great bearing on mortgaging rates, etc.?
They never even addressed the allegations bearing in their decision.
I know that I don’t have to be convicted of something before losing MY job over fraudulent activity. If I’m found innocent I can then sue for slander, probably. But they can fire me just based on the accusation. (They would probably do the safe thing and “suspend without pay.” Which is the same thing, except now I can’t get another paycheck, because I then would have ‘quit’.)
And its not just one single fraud but a serious of frauds that needs to be dealt with. A single mistake could be “forgiven” but this wasnt a single mistake. It was a number of mistakes that all benefitted her pocket.
Read the post before commenting. The court said the fact that she can’t be fired without cause gives her a property right in the job, which means there needs to be due process before she can be fired from it. She needs to be confronted with the charges and have a chance to refute them before a neutral finder of fact.
Frost warnings in h3ll. I agree with milhouse.
The next step is ABOLISH the FED.
The accusations were handled before a neutral finder of fact — the president. He’s not a party to either case of fraud she committed.
The judicial wokiestas are really doing yeoman service in blowing up the ‘Administrative State’. The Constitution is very clear, it authorized 3 branches of the Federal Govt, not ‘independent agencies/boards/commissions’ and directs that ‘The executive Power shall in be vested in a President of the USA’. Sooner or later SCOTUS is going to pull the trigger to put down Humphries Executor and other misguided judicial interpretations that prop up rulings like the DC Circuit made here.
So, a paycheck from the government now invokes the Due Process clause for firing?! Holy moley. That’s absurd.
You can argue the Fed Reserve law aspect. I’d come down on the side that “cause” was definitely given. But it can at least be argued. But the Fifth Amendment for FIRING? No, honey, that’s an emanation of a penumbra too far.
So here’s the due process.
1) A hearing
2) Is this your signature on these loans?
3) Yes or No.
4) Your DEI ass is fired.
I don’t doubt the fed will keep rates flat this week out of spite. I once thought there was something bigger in play (and there might be) but these are just low life petty criminals with the power to destroy the economy.
That’s exactly what the court said. But she didn’t get that.
That is indeed the due process, with the following notes.
a) she is allowed to have counsel at the hearing. Lack of counsel will be seen as lack of due process. The presence of counsel will slow things down, but that’s what they do.
b) introduce each document, make her attest to the signature, and ask her to answer if she understood the intent of each document. Further, ask specifically if her intent was to occupy each residence as her primary residence. You’ve now hoisted her on her own petard.
c) record the hearing and release both the recording and the transcript afterwards. The public has an interest in the proceedings, and the government must ensure that due process is delivered. If Ms. Cook objects, remind her that she is a high-level public official and that this is now a controversial job action, so that the public needs to see that the hearing is transparent.
d) her demand for ‘due process’ then becomes, in certain ways, a perjury trap for her. One has to be adroit; the courts won’t look kindly on a ‘due process hearing’ that becomes an inquisition, but one can clearly invite her to make statements that the U.S. Attorney then will consider in her upcoming criminal review.
Yes, yes, Ms. Cook, we’ll throw you into the briar patch.
Deep state for the Loss.
One part lies about Biden job creation to help his bid for re-election.
Because OMB.
Another part uses fake employment figures to resist changing interest rates.
Because OMB.
A third part blocks firing a crooked official caught in financial chicanery who’s also responsible for changing (or not) interest rates.
All because OMB.
Everyone is ignoring the real problem with this ruling.
The court says she has a “property interest “ in an official office.
That is a property interest in political power.
We cannot allow that.
She has an interest in her salary.
Not in political office.
It takes very little imagination to think what could happen it you own a political position with power over others
She only has a property interest in the salary she has earned. She does not have a property interest in next year’s pay.
She’s not allowed to stay on the board while she is spending her time fighting a criminal case against her. That’s in the actual law, 12 USC Sec 241:
Honestly, we know she lacks the credentials to be making suck decisions because her lack of appropriate education or business experience has already been made public, and we know they she has committed financial fraud in a position that must demand not even a hint of impropriety, and yet she is still employed.
her ability to secure a job based on her race/skin color is more important than competency
the feds agenda is racist and as from the beginning of its inception, was just another lefty scheme to control the banks,,and have the ability to say,,
its not us, the government ,,they are quasi private etc etc
cant defeat your opponents when you give them the means to win
ABOLISH the FED.
Since its creation in 1913 to manage the depreciation of the dollar and the ravages of inflation in the economy, the US dollar has lost a whopping 93% of its purchasing power.
Is that bad? Yes. Yes, it is kids.
And the purpose of a system is what it DOES. As such, it is irrefutable that the Fed has successfully managed the depreciation of the dollar and ravaged the economy with inflation.
ABOLISH the FED.
The idea of having a property interest in your job needs to be squashed. It is a perversion of the law, and it WILL be used against private employers.
da barbarian inside da gates and watnot