The Supreme Court seemed hesitant on Wednesday to adhere to President Trump’s timeline for removing Federal Reserve President Lisa Cook.
Attorney General D. John Sauer encountered skepticism from many justices who questioned the urgency of Trump’s request. They seemed reluctant to tackle significant constitutional questions without a thorough record.
Cook had faced accusations of mortgage fraud in August, but a temporary district court judge reinstated her in September, believing that the reasons for her dismissal likely didn’t qualify as “for cause.” One justice, Samuel Alito, probed Sauer about why the executive branch and lower courts needed to rush this issue. He asked, “Is there any reason why this had to be handled so quickly?” Alito also inquired if there was an actual mortgage application on record.
Sauer admitted he wasn’t sure if the complete mortgage document was included in the district court’s records, even though the text of the application was.
After Trump asked the justices to approve Cook’s firing, they allowed her to stay in her role temporarily while the case proceeded. It appears likely they will send the matter back to a lower court, but Trump is eager to have Cook removed during this ongoing process.
Sauer argued that “Americans shouldn’t have their interest rates dictated by someone who may have been grossly negligent regarding favorable interest rates.”
What’s the Procedure?
The justices probed into what notifications and hearings are necessary for dismissing officials. They questioned why the President opted for such a hasty firing via social media.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns about potential repercussions. He suggested that if a Democrat were to assume the presidency, all of Trump’s appointees could face similar “for cause” removals. He remarked, “You just find something and put it on paper, and there’s no judicial review. So, what are we doing?”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the necessity of addressing this matter through an emergency petition, pointing out that the President can’t simply fire someone due to policy disagreements. She stated, “She was not incompetent or engaged in wrongdoing during her tenure, which was before she was sworn in. Keeping her wouldn’t immediately harm the agency.”
Another pressing question was whether the court had the authority to keep dismissed officials in their posts. Justice John Roberts asked Sauer, if courts can’t reinstate fired police officers, why bother discussing the notion of cause at all?
Understanding “for Cause”
Under the Federal Reserve system, the President can remove board members only “for cause,” a measure meant to ensure the Fed’s independence in influencing interest rates away from political pressures.
When reinstating Cook, Judge Gia Cobb noted that the grounds for removal should relate to an official’s conduct during their tenure and whether they effectively executed their statutory responsibilities.
The justices pressed Cook’s attorney, Paul Clement, about whether actions before taking office should be considered. Alito posed a hypothetical about officials being filmed expressing extreme views after their appointment.
Clement responded that such an official would face immediate impeachment.
Kavanaugh suggested a simple resolution might be to deny the government’s application based on inadequate proceedings.
