This case arises from the Trump administration’s attempt to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
After Cook challenged the removal, the federal district court in Washington, D.C. issued a ruling that would keep her in office until her lawsuit is fully resolved. The D.C. Circuit allowed that ruling to stand. When the Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justices scheduled oral argument on the issue for January 2026.
Legal historian Jane Manners, a member of the Brennan Center’s Historians Council on the Constitution, filed an amicus brief exploring the history of statutes that give the heads of independent agencies terms with a fixed-year duration and allow presidents to remove those heads only “for cause” – the kind of removal protections that Cook has under the statute setting up the Federal Reserve. The brief argues that Congress required that any removal be accompanied by notice and a hearing, which Cook was not given. It draws on a substantial body of state and federal law following this rule. The brief further argues that, historically, Congress generally shielded officers like Cook from removal for acts they allegedly committed prior to taking office. And it notes that the executive’s determination of “cause” for the firing is judicially reviewable, so that the Trump administration cannot avoid scrutiny of its removal decision.
