I Am Glad Lisa Cook Rightly Gets to Keep Her Job as Federal Reserve Governor Today
Yes, John Roberts has just told a lot of lies about history and legal doctrine in the process of his getting to the right result on the equities in the case of Cook v. Trump. What is the thumbnail here? “John Roberts set own “unitary executive” doctrine on fire because rich people he likes have an interest in being protected from chaos-monkey Trump? Unitary executive for thee—but not for the Fed? The 5–4 win for Federal Reserve independence exposes the bad faith at the core of the Court’s corrupt crusade? When Trump wants control of the FTC, the Court hands him Article II absolutism; when he lunges at the Fed, suddenly history and prudence matter? Lisa Cook keeps her seat — not because the Court believes its own precedents, but because letting Trump loose on monetary policy terrifies two members of the standard majority of even this deeply corrupt Supreme Court?
I am very happy to report that the Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of my friend and sometime student Lisa Cook today. Thus she can keep her job as Governor of the Federal Reserve. For now. That is the right decision. But, of course, it is made not for the reason that the President’s power to faithfully execute the laws requires that he do so in a manner consistent with the structure of departments, institutions, and agencies constructed by congressional legislation.
For today here comes deeply cynical and corrupt Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. He lies. He lies in the process of doing the right thing in the case before him—that of Fed Governor Lisa Cook:
Amy Howe: Skip to main contentCourt prevents Trump from Firing Fed Governor <https://braddelong.substack.com/publish/post/204135899>: ‘The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors whom President Donald Trump had attempted to fire. By a vote of 5-4…
The five were the three not thoroughly corrupt justices—Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson—plus Kavanaugh and Roberts.
Continuing:
The court held that Cook can continue to remain in her job while her challenge to Trump’s efforts to fire her moves forward…. Roberts contended that, if the Trump administration were correct, it “would in effect transform the Federal Reserve’s for-cause protection into at-will employment—an interpretive leap out of step with the statute Congress enacted and our Nation’s tradition of central banking protected from political interference…”
But the whole point of the “unitary executive” theory—which this corrupt court has bought into almost whole-hog since Trump’s reelection, although its corrupt majority did not do so while Biden was president—is that when Congress delegates authority to an executive agency, it cannot restrict the president’s power to dismiss the people who are even if Senate confirmation is required, purely and entirely his agents. That is now the law. Everywhere but where the Federal Reserve is concerned. Even more so today.
For example:
Since taking office in January 2025, Trump has attempted to assert control over several multi-member independent agencies, whose officials could also only be removed for cause. In orders issued last year, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to fire members of the Federal Trade Commission, National Labor Relations Board, Merit Systems Protection Board, and Consumer Product Safety Commission while their appeals moved forward…
Cook, however, was different…
Why was Cook different? What is the distinguishing rationale here?
It is this: letting this chaos monkey president gain control of the Federal Reserve might actually be bad for people whom we like, and not just for libtards who cry when the chaos monkey president disrupts and damages pieces of the New-Deal Order social-insurance state that I loathe so.
That is it. Deeply cynical. Deeply corrupt.
Clarence Thomas (or, rather, his clerks—Thomas does not have the mental stamina or energy to have learned enough to have have played a substantial role here so outfar his wheelhouse) writes, correctly:
Clarence Thomas: Dissenting <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf>: ‘The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System… unlike the Federal Reserve Banks, is a federal executive agency that regulates much of the Nation’s economy…. Apparent mortgage fraud was a “cause” to remove Cook. And, the statute authorizing the President to remove Cook for “cause” says nothing about notice or a hearing, so it does not require notice and a hearing. Any other result would violate Article II of the Constitution, under which the President may remove executive officers at will…. [Roberts] makes many policy arguments for an “independent” banking agency that exercises executive power free from accountability, ante, at 5, but those are ultimately arguments against the Constitution…
And:
Samuel Alito & Neil Gorsuch: Dissenting <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf>: ‘The President has satisfied the traditional stay factors. Consider first the President’s likelihood of success…. The District Court erred in holding that removal “for cause” means removal only for “events that have occurred while [the officer is] in office.”… Cook lacks a private property interest in her seat on the Board of Governors…. Thus, the President’s attempt to remove her could not have violated the Due Process Clause…. Because the courts below resolved these two issues incorrectly, I would conclude that the President has shown a likelihood that we would reverse at this preliminary stage…. As to the remaining stay factors, this Court has held that they are satisfied when a lower court countermands the President’s removal of a principal executive officer. See Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 1–2). A stay is therefore warranted here…
And:
Barrett: Dissenting <https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a312_5468.pdf>: ‘The Court chooses to answer a series of difficult merits questions… not addressed by… almost any other court before today…. The biggest issue: Is the removal restriction in the Federal Reserve Act constitutional?… [This] last is in a league of its own…. Nonetheless, the Court raises and settles the constitutional issue—and does so based on a conclusory analogy to the First and Second Banks of the United States. Ante, at 22–23….
The Court’s holding is in serious tension with Trump v. Slaughter, which we also decide today. ___ U. S. ___ (2026). Slaughter announces a categorical rule: Whenever “an agency ‘executes’ a congressional mandate against private parties, it exercises executive power” and must be subject to plenary executive control—“no ifs, ands, or quasis about it.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 22). Yet here, the Court claims a special exception “‘sanctioned by history’” and based on the Federal Reserve’s role in setting monetary policy. Ante, at 24. How can history support both a categorical rule and a carveout?… And is the Federal Reserve unique, or might history sanction other exceptions too? The Court does not say….
We have repeatedly found that the President suffers irreparable harm when he is barred from firing a subordinate. See Trump v. Wilcox, 605 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 1); Trump v. Boyle, 606 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (slip op., at 1)…. The District Court’s order blocks the President from removing Cook for mortgage fraud, and that is so even if he satisfies the requirements that the Court’s opinion sets out. Under our precedent, that significant interference with the President’s removal authority clears the “irreparable harm” threshold…
Does Roberts’s opinion in his 26-page opinion in Trump v. Cook answer any of the dissents?
Reminding, the points made in dissent are that:
Roberts’s opinion is contradicted by Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Wilcox,
Cook cannot the due-process clause because she does not have a property interest,
Cook cannot raise a statutory requirement for notice and hearing because there is no statutory requirement for such before a for-cause dismissal, and
while the Federal Reserve System is not a mere normal executive-branch agency, the Federal Reserve Board definitely is just a normal executive-branch agency, and in that respect is very different from the First and Second Banks of the United States.
Does Roberts have an answer to any of these?
He does not.