Justices appear skeptical as Trump’s lawyers argue he ‘provided adequate process’ in attempt to fire Cook
Throughout the first half today’s arguments, the Trump administration’s lawyers argue that the president “provided adequate process” in his attempt to fire Lisa Cook via social media posts.
Several justices today appeared skeptical, and pushed the solicitor general about why Trump wouldn’t hold some type of hearing to sufficiently lay out the accusations levied against the governor.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked why the president didn’t “sit down across the table in the Roosevelt Room” with Cook to “to hear what her response is” to the allegations.
Key events
Adam Gabbatt
Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th president, characterized his approach to international relations as “speak softly and carry a big stick”. It was an approach that won him a Nobel peace prize in 1906, for his role in ending the Russo-Japanese war.
In recent days, Donald Trump’s own take on diplomacy has come into focus, one that might be characterized thusly: speak hysterically and threaten to use (and sometimes actually use) a big stick. This idiosyncratic approach to statecraft has yet to win Trump a Nobel peace prize, although that is something that the president has said – many, many times – does not bother him at all.
Yes, instead of winning him awards (made-up soccer prizes notwithstanding), Trump’s statecraft is rattling key US allies, through his increasingly pugnacious effort to conquer Greenland. It’s a topic that dominated the buildup to his speech at the World Economic Forum, in Davos on Wednesday, as Trump launched a specious argument as to why the US should be able to have Greenland, which is part of the Danish kingdom.
For the full story, click here:
Cecilia Nowell
The California Republican party has asked the US supreme court to block a redistricting measure voters approved in November that would flip up to five House seats in Democrats’ favor.
In an emergency filing, the party asked Justice Elena Kagan, who is assigned to the ninth circuit in a supervisory capacity to oversee emergency filings, to issue an injunction before 9 February, the beginning of California’s candidate filing period for the June 2026 primaries.
The new map was endorsed by voters as a counterweight to a similar redistricting effort in Texas aimed at boosting Republicans. A federal court on 14 January rejected the argument by the challengers that California illegally used race in redrawing the boundaries of the congressional districts.
“California cannot create districts by race, and the state should not be allowed to lock in districts that break federal law,” said Corrin Rankin, the chair of the California Republican party. “Our emergency application asks the supreme court to put the brakes on Prop 50 now, before the Democrats try to run out the clock and force candidates and voters to live with unconstitutional congressional districts.”
For the full story, click here:
Lisa Cook: ‘For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence’
In a statement released following arguments at the supreme court, Lisa Cook said:
This case is about whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure.
Research and experience show that Federal Reserve independence is essential to fulfilling the congressional mandate of price stability and maximum employment. That is why Congress chose to insulate the Federal Reserve from political threats, while holding it accountable for delivering on that mandate.
For as long as I serve at the Federal Reserve, I will uphold the principle of political independence in service to the American people.
In his rebuttal, the solicitor general, John D Sauer, closed by saying that the standard of showing inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance (INM) normally required for the president to fire officials doesn’t apply in this case. He noted that the “for cause” standard “gives the president more discretion and provides less protection to the officer”.
It’s worth noting that Paul Clement routinely said these standards were one and the same during arguments when it comes to the removal of a Federal Reserve governor at the court today.
Sauer added that “there really isn’t support anywhere for this notion that pre-office misconduct can’t be considered when it comes to a cause standard” for assessing the accusations against Cook.
Justices appear concerned about Cook not receiving sufficient notice to respond to allegations
Once again, the justices seem concerned that Cook didn’t receive sufficient notice to respond to the allegations against her.
Justice Jackson pushed Clement on whether notice by social media post was an adequate example of due process.
Cook’s lawyer says that the Truth Social post saying that he was firing Lisa Cook was “fundamentally defective” because it’s “indisputable evidence that the president prejudged the matter”.
Answering a question from Justice Barrett today, Clement says that his “best argument” that the president is not suffering irreparable harm when it comes to Lisa Cook staying in her role is that “he’s not suffering the unique indignity of having sort of pure executive power exercised by people that are removable at will, outside of his control”.
He added that Cook’s removal could lead to “enormous irreparable harms” for everyday Americans.
“There’s a reason that monetary policy has been treated differently for below these many years, and there’s a reason that the markets watch the Fed a little more closely than they watch really any other agency of government,” Clement said.
Justice Samuel Alito just asked Clement whether he thinks the court should decide this case on the factual ground “shown by the materials that are before us”, which, he notes, would “show nothing more than gross negligence”.
Per Clement’s argument, this would be insufficient reasoning for Cook’s removal.
Justice Alito, half-joking, says that that he understands Clement’s answer to be: “You should do that if you’re going to find in favor of me.”
Joanna Walters
There was a brief flurry at the supreme court hearing earlier after the solicitor general, John Sauer, was talking over some of the justices – coincidentally, or not, all women – and was reprimanded by the chief justice, John Roberts.
Sauer interrupted Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and, although it was very brief, the chief intervened to tell Sauer, “Counsel, please allow the justice” to finish, Scotusblog reported.
The solicitor general is arguing the case in front of the court for the Trump administration, against Lisa Cook, while her case is being put by a former solicitor general, who is also a well-known conservative, Paul Clement.
Sauer was also heard talking over Sonia Sotomayor, one of the other liberal-leaning justices, and Amy Coney Barrett, the conservative justice appointed by Donald Trump at the end of his first term to replace the late arch liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Cook’s lawer, Paul Clement, answers questions from supreme court justices
Lisa Cook’s lawyer, Paul Clement, is now answering questions from the supreme court justices.
“The sum total of the solicitor general’s arguments would reduce the removal restriction in this unique institution to something that could only be recognized as at-will employment,” Clement said in his opening argument today. “No procedural due process before removal, no judicial review after removal, no preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo and a conception of ‘cause’ so capacious that apparent misconduct or gross negligence suffices, that makes no sense.”
Justices appear skeptical as Trump’s lawyers argue he ‘provided adequate process’ in attempt to fire Cook
Throughout the first half today’s arguments, the Trump administration’s lawyers argue that the president “provided adequate process” in his attempt to fire Lisa Cook via social media posts.
Several justices today appeared skeptical, and pushed the solicitor general about why Trump wouldn’t hold some type of hearing to sufficiently lay out the accusations levied against the governor.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked why the president didn’t “sit down across the table in the Roosevelt Room” with Cook to “to hear what her response is” to the allegations.
Kavanaugh says argument that Trump can fire governors without a hearing could ‘shatter’ Fed independence
In his questioning today, conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed the solicitor general about his argument that “for cause” is ultimately up to the president, without judicial review or a hearing.
“No process required, no remedy available, very low bar ‘for cause’ that the president alone determines,” Kavanaugh said. “That would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”
When it comes to the possible harm to the public, Barrett noted that the court has received amicus briefs from economists who say that Cook’s removal “could trigger a recession”.
A reminder that a federal court blocked Cook’s removal from the board of governors, and she has been allowed to remain in her position while the case plays out.
Barrett and Jackson push Trump administration on how allegations against Cook could harm the public
During today’s arguments, both conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson of the liberal wing of the court pushed the solicitor general to explain how the administration’s allegations against Cook would harm the public if she were to remain in her position.
Jackson went on to press Sauer to provide “evidence that supports that allegation” of Cook’s mortgage fraud. “What is the evidence that has been presented and considered with respect to Ms Cook’s alleged misconduct?”
Questioning the solicitor general today, justice Sonia Sotomayor focused on the timeline of the allegations against Cook, namely that she is accused of committing fraud prior to her role on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
“It’s not as if she’s been incompetent, negligent or committed malfeasance while in office,” Sotomayor said. “This is something pre-office, so keeping her in office is not causing an immediate harm to the agency.”
Arguments begin at supreme court in case over Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve governor
The arguments in the case to decide whether the firing of Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, is legal have begun.
Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, solicitor general John D Sauer said today that “the American people should not have their interest rates determined by someone who was at best, grossly negligent in obtaining favorable interest rates for herself”.
A reminder that the Trump administration attempted to fire Cook for over apparent discrepancies on her mortgage applications, that officials claim are evidence of fraud.
