The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide in the coming days whether President Donald Trump can remove Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook from her post - an extraordinary step that would mark the first presidential firing of a Fed official since the central bank's founding in 1913 and directly test the institution's independence from political interference.
The justices, who hold a 6-3 conservative majority, signaled skepticism during January arguments toward Trump's authority to oust Cook. The Federal Reserve Act requires that governors be removed only "for cause," a term Congress left undefined and without procedural details. Trump cited unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud - which Cook has denied and called a pretext for her removal over monetary policy disagreements. Cook has remained in her role while the case proceeds. No president has attempted such a firing in the Fed's more than century-long history.
This dispute is one of three pending cases examining the outer limits of presidential power under Trump. The others involve his removal of a Federal Trade Commission member and an executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court has already delivered Trump victories in two immigration cases this week and has frequently sided with the administration in emergency rulings, though it rejected his sweeping tariffs in February.
Firing Federal Officials
The justices appeared ready during December arguments to uphold Trump's firing of Democratic FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter over policy differences. Lower courts had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Court to overturn the 1935 precedent Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which has protected heads of independent agencies from at-will removal. While the Court has narrowed that precedent in recent decades, it has stopped short of overruling it. Conservative justices have expressed sympathy for the view that statutory tenure protections encroach on the president's constitutional powers. The Court previously allowed Trump to remove Slaughter while the case continues.
Election-Related Cases
Two election disputes remain as Republicans seek to retain congressional control in the November midterms.
During March arguments, conservative justices expressed skepticism toward a Mississippi law - challenged by Republicans and supported by the Trump administration - that permits mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day to be counted if received up to five business days later. A lower court invalidated the provision. A ruling striking down the law could encourage stricter voting rules nationwide.
Trump issued an executive order in March restricting mail-in ballots across the country, but a federal judge in Boston blocked its implementation on Thursday.
In December, the Court heard a Republican-led challenge - involving Vice President JD Vance - to federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates. Some conservative justices appeared open to the First Amendment arguments against the restrictions, while the liberal justices seemed inclined to preserve them. A lower court had upheld the limits.
Transgender Athletes
In January arguments, the conservative majority signaled it is prepared to uphold laws in Idaho and West Virginia barring transgender athletes from female sports teams at public schools and universities. The states argue the measures protect fair competition for women and girls; critics see them as part of broader efforts to restrict transgender rights.
Geofence Warrants
The Court also heard April arguments in a Virginia case examining whether law enforcement's use of "geofence" warrants - which sweep up cellphone location data from areas near crime scenes to identify potential suspects - violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches.
The Supreme Court's term, which began in October, typically ends in late June or early July. With seven cases still unresolved and the next round of decisions expected Monday, the coming days will bring clarity on these high-stakes disputes.