By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Supreme Court has allowed Lisa Cook to remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now, declining to act on the Trump administration’s effort to immediately remove her from the central bank. The court will hear arguments in January regarding Trump’s attempt to force Cook off the Fed board and will consider whether to block a lower-court ruling in Cook’s favor. This case stems from Trump’s unprecedented bid to reshape the Fed board and stems from accusations of mortgage fraud against Cook, while a related case involving Trump’s firings of other federal officials is also being heard. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, will be able to participate in the remaining two Fed meetings in 2025.
Read the original article here
Supreme Court lets Lisa Cook remain as a Federal Reserve governor for now. This decision from the Supreme Court to allow Lisa Cook to stay in her position as a Federal Reserve governor, at least for the moment, seems like a pretty significant, though perhaps temporary, development. It feels like a generous concession, particularly when considering it may act as a check against potential overreach by Trump. It certainly feels like a situation where the Court is choosing to step in and say, “Hold on a second,” when it comes to the independence of critical institutions.
The phrase “for now” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the news headlines. It’s popping up everywhere in connection with these Supreme Court rulings. It seems the court isn’t necessarily standing on principle but instead appears to be influenced by external pressures, particularly concerning the stability of the financial markets and the dollar. If the Fed is viewed as a political tool of the executive branch, the global markets would undoubtedly take a hit, and the justices seem to be aware of this potential fallout.
The court’s recent actions appear to be a deviation from previous rulings, particularly regarding the firing of individuals from independent agencies. This raises questions about the consistency of their decisions and the influence of other factors, namely the economic stability of their own investments. It seems like if the Supreme Court continues to allow executive interference in independent agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve, there is real risk of the dollar and the U.S. treasury becoming less stable.
The Supreme Court’s actions appear to be driven by the potential impact on their own financial interests. They seemingly understand the economic risks of letting Trump tamper with the Federal Reserve. It’s almost as if they’re saying, “Trump can do what he wants, but don’t touch the Fed.” They know that letting the Fed become a political tool would likely send the markets into a frenzy. The implication is that financial stability is more important than political maneuvering, at least in this instance.
The use of “for now” in the rulings indicates that these decisions aren’t necessarily final judgments but rather procedural steps pending full arguments and rulings. This is amplified by what is called the “shadow docket,” where the court has been accepting appeals and granting requests at a higher rate, allowing potentially illegal actions to continue “for now”. This allows the lower courts to put a pause on something happening before the full suit, but it takes time. This is, of course, dependent on how well the lower courts issue injunctions and permanent injunctions and what actions the higher court ultimately decides on as a whole.
The fact that the Supreme Court is not allowing the firing to go through suggests they have concerns about the economic fallout. The court is essentially saying, “We may eventually decide the firing was illegal, and if it was, she’ll be entitled to back pay.” This reinforces the idea that their financial well-being might be a major factor in their decisions.
This seems to be one of those rare instances where the court is putting a check on Trump’s power, perhaps because they are concerned about the potential damage to their own finances. The court does not appear to be standing by their own precedents. It is important to note that they are simply not in favor of letting Trump undermine the stability of the financial system. This is especially important given the court has ruled in Trump’s favor with several other cases. It appears that the court has a vested interest in keeping the market functioning.