In a courtroom clash that’s got Washington buzzing, a federal appeals court has slapped down President Donald J. Trump’s attempt to boot Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook from her post.
Breitbart reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a divided ruling on Monday, denied the administration’s emergency plea to lift a lower-court injunction keeping Cook in her seat, setting the stage for a high-stakes battle over presidential power and due process.
Let’s rewind to the start of this drama: President Trump announced he had “cause” to remove Cook, pointing to allegations of misrepresentations on mortgage applications before her appointment.
The administration argued these claims justified her dismissal, but the court’s majority wasn’t buying a rushed exit.
On Monday night, the appeals panel upheld the injunction, with Judge Bradley Garcia and Judge J. Michelle Childs ruling that Cook deserved notice and a chance to respond before being shown the door.
“The government may not prioritize any policy goal over the Due Process Clause,” Garcia wrote, a line that sounds noble but sidesteps the urgency of holding financial regulators to a high ethical standard.
Let’s be real—while due process matters, dragging this out risks undermining a president’s ability to ensure accountability at the Fed, an institution already insulated from political oversight by Congress with its “for cause” removal protections.
The majority didn’t deny Trump might have grounds to remove Cook over the mortgage allegations, but insisted her 14-year term as a Fed governor grants her a property interest in the job, entitling her to contest the charges under the Fifth Amendment.
Meanwhile, Judge Gregory Katsas dissented with a sharp reminder that public office isn’t a personal fiefdom, citing a century-old Supreme Court precedent that offices aren’t property—hard to argue with that logic when trust in regulators is on the line.
Katsas didn’t mince words on the allegations, arguing they directly challenge Cook’s suitability as a financial overseer, a point that cuts to the heart of why this fight matters.
With the Federal Reserve’s Open Market Committee meeting kicking off on Tuesday, September 16, 2025, this ruling likely ensures Cook will be there, casting votes on monetary policy, including a widely expected quarter-point interest rate cut by Wednesday.
That’s a bitter pill for those who believe a compromised governor shouldn’t be shaping the nation’s economic course, even if only temporarily.
Looking ahead, the Trump administration isn’t backing down and is expected to take this fight to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn the appeals court’s decision.
The legal tug-of-war over Cook’s fate underscores a broader tension: how much power should a president wield over Fed governors, who play a direct role in setting interest rates and steering monetary policy, yet are shielded from at-will dismissal?
While the court’s focus on procedural fairness isn’t wrong, it’s hard not to wonder if this delays justice in a case where public trust in our financial guardians hangs in the balance—let’s hope the Supreme Court brings clarity, and fast.